Anthropologists on Gay marriage

[Sayhey]

The American Anthropological Association (http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm) has issued a statement on the validity of Bush's and other's claims about marriage as a heterosexual institution.

Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association

Arlington, Virginia; The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists, the people who study culture, releases the following statement in response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization.

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

[numediaman]

Great post! This is precisely what we need -- comments from institutions that are not solely religious in nature.

[zimv20]

thanks for posting that. i'd never considered that such a group would issue such a strong statement so early.

it's academia's equivalent of "we call ************"

[Doctor Q]

I'm glad we are hearing some scientific opinions. Maybe biologists and social scientists can teach us something useful, since politicians and activists on either side of the issue are making assumptions that haven't been proven.

If we take the approach of a research scientist, we should devise further experiments. How 'bout if we make gay marriage fully equivalent to standard marriage in one state, legal but limited in another state, allow only civil unions in yet another state, and ban both completely in another state. Then we stand back for a year, wearing visors and holding clipboards, and see what happens to the social fabric.

[mactastic]

Yeah, but when have scientific findings made any difference to this WH?

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah, but when have scientific findings made any difference to this WH? Even the cynical among us know that politicians look after their own interests, so when facts become known to a large part of the public, they have to deal with it. For example, the WH had to update their statements about the Iraqi WMD issue when more and more reliable information found its way into all the newspapers.

Smoking is an issue where interested parties (tobacco companies) denied the facts until the scientific evidence overwhelmed them. Now we have issues like CRT emissions and second-hand smoke, where both sides are going to continue arguing their case, and studies now in progress will help guide us toward using more reliable statistics to confirm/refute their arguments.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah, but when have scientific findings made any difference to this WH?
I predict that the White House will appoint a special panel to investigate the impacts of same-sex marriage. It'll be stacked with Southern Baptist ministers. When they can't conclude that any measurable harm will be done to society by allowing gays to marry, the report will be quietly shelved and the President's policy will continue as before.

Okay, so I'm not actually predicting this. It could never happen. Right?

[Taft]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I predict that the White House will appoint a special panel to investigate the impacts of same-sex marriage. It'll be stacked with Southern Baptist ministers. When they can't conclude that any measurable harm will be done to society by allowing gays to marry, the report will be quietly shelved and the President's policy will continue as before.

Okay, so I'm not actually predicting this. It could never happen. Right?

Well, considering that the exact same thing happened during the Nixon administration, I wouldn't be so sure. Nixon commissioned a study to find out the "real" effects of marijuana on society and individuals who use it. When the commission submitted a report which showed that marijuana had little negative effects to either the individual or society, Nixon shelved the report and ignored its findings.

There will always be those administrations who have predetermined positions on issues. Often those administrations will ignore any and all evidence which promote a position contrary to the administration's positions. And still people vote for these clowns.

Man, I'm so sick of people. :D

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Taft
Man, I'm so sick of people.

Just some people, I hope.

[2jaded2care]

Apparently they need to modify the definition of anthropologists to be "the people who study and attempt to influence the culture they are observing."

I thought anthropologists were *almost* like scientists -- you know, observing, recording unobtrusively, not going out of their way to influence the outcome.

Guess I'm not an anthropologist.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Apparently they need to modify the definition of anthropologists to be "the people who study and attempt to influence the culture they are observing."

I thought anthropologists were *almost* like scientists -- you know, observing, recording unobtrusively, not going out of their way to influence the outcome.

Guess I'm not an anthropologist.

would you feel better if the message came from sociologists?

[2jaded2care]

Zimv20, thanks for not flaming me (yet). I had expected to be immediately drawn and quartered.

I have no problem with their statement to the effect that the scientific data do not support Bush's "thesis". Of course I would have no problem with individual anthropologists expressing their personal opinions on this issue.

But for a professional association of anthropologists to go the next step and issue a statement of "strong opposition", effectively rendering judgement on a cultural issue such as this seems, well, inconsistent with my perceived role of anthropologists as "scientists". (Besides, I would think that their preceding statements would have implied their opposition to an amendment to any intelligent individual, without even having to "spell it out" for the LCD.)

Of course, I've been wrong before...

[2jaded2care]

Excuse me, should have written "for the executive board of a professional association, appearing to speak for its members as a group..."

[zimv20]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care

But for a professional association of anthropologists to go the next step and issue a statement of "strong opposition", effectively rendering judgement on a cultural issue such as this seems, well, inconsistent with my perceived role of anthropologists as "scientists".

i think that's exactly their role. i'd like to see what various sociological groups have to say about it. don't forget that these groups are part of the social sciences, if a name counts for anything.

[Neserk]

In my experience, Sociologists and Anthropologists are the best ones to help diffuse the issue. They seem to be just about the only people that realize how things are done in the Western World is not the *only* way things are done. A lot of other people have problems with that concept.

[2jaded2care]

Boy, was I ignorant of what the field of anthropology is all about! After some Googling, it's apparent that to call the field as apolitical as "Doonesbury" would be an understatement.

Not at all what I remember being taught about it way back in HS.

Now that I have some context, I won't be surprised to hear next week that the executive board of the AAA has declared Bush is, in fact, the anti-Christ.

[2jaded2care]

Sorry, Antichrist. (Think before you type, think before you type...)

[Desertrat]

Sure, many societies have had many forms of family groupings.

But, what does that have to do with us, with the U.S.? If you want to limit it to the idea that homosexual "marriage" does no harm, fine by me. If you take the view that Bush is mistaken, fine by me. But let it end there.

The majority of the people in the U.S. have some degree of dislike for homosexuality. For some, it's mild. For the more religious within Islam or Christianity, it's anathema. Are these latter to be sneered at, as though their views were irrelevant to our society?

Personally, I don't have a lot of use for organized religions. It strikes me as arrogant to the nth degree, however, to sneer, to "put down" religious people.

'Rat

[numediaman]

You have a "right" to dislike anyone you want. You do not have a "right" to discriminate against that group. It is a simple concept.

The idea that marriage is "owned" by hetrosexuals is crazy. There are no separate rights spelled out in the Constitution for straight people. Are we to have separate drinking fountains for gays? Are gays going to be allowed to own drivers' licenses?

Sure marriage is "traditionally" between a man and a woman. So what? I don't get the argument. It has no legal standing. In many traditions marriages are arranged. Should we put that into the law? In many traditions there must be a dowery. Should we put that into the law?

Tradition is what people believe because of their background, ethnicity, etc. It is a belief, not law. Just because you believe in arranged marriage doesn't mean you can prevent two people from marry because of love. (Some people marry for money, right? I believe its morally wrong -- but create a law outlawing it?)

If you do not "believe" in gay marriage. Fine. Your beliefs do not trump people's rights.

[kettle]

Whatever the out come. It is probably a good time to start a world wide recognised ceremony for the promotion an celebration of the male and female procreational union. It will be a blessing for the commitment to a sexually reproductive partnership within the human species.

I believe people who enjoy this tradition of family structure will enjoy celebrating it regardless of whatever sudo science can be accumilated in the nutralisation of this universally recognised system.

You could tell me that every child born to a male female parental family structure is more likely to be a depressed crack addict and I'd still want to celabrate the magnificent biological soul carriers that humans are. I want to recognise our inbuilt system of reproduction and subsequent nurturing of those reproductions, successful or not.

You can still be gay and be recognised by this ceremony, it's just that you'll have to be commiting to a sexual partnership with the opposite sex.

I have a right to this and I have a right to defend it. There is no compromise to this simple request of human right.

[pseudobrit]

I predict that the White House will appoint a special panel to investigate the impacts of same-sex marriage. It'll be stacked with Southern Baptist ministers. When they can't conclude that any measurable harm will be done to society by allowing gays to marry, the report will be quietly shelved and the President's policy will continue as before.

Okay, so I'm not actually predicting this. It could never happen. Right?

The WH likes a sure thing.

They'll find an obscure report based on research that's already been conducted in a faulty and half-assed manner and comes to the conclusions they want, trump it up in a big speech so everyone will hear it but few will know of the later recant when it's scrutinised. Then they'll blame the report to deflect any negative attention.

Think African Uranium.

[simX]

Whatever the out come. It is probably a good time to start a world wide recognised ceremony for the promotion an celebration of the male and female procreational union. It will be a blessing for the commitment to a sexually reproductive partnership within the human species.

I believe people who enjoy this tradition of family structure will enjoy celebrating it regardless of whatever sudo science can be accumilated in the nutralisation of this universally recognised system.

You could tell me that every child born to a male female parental family structure is more likely to be a depressed crack addict and I'd still want to celabrate the magnificent biological soul carriers that humans are. I want to recognise our inbuilt system of reproduction and subsequent nurturing of those reproductions, successful or not.

You can still be gay and be recognised by this ceremony, it's just that you'll have to be commiting to a sexual partnership with the opposite sex.

I have a right to this and I have a right to defend it. There is no compromise to this simple request of human right.

If you believe that we should keep the institution of marriage solely to heterosexual relationships based on the fact that these are the only relationships that can be "sexually productive", then do you oppose granting marriages to the elderly or to the impotent?

[Awimoway]

If you believe that we should keep the institution of marriage solely to heterosexual relationships based on the fact that these are the only relationships that can be "sexually productive", then do you oppose granting marriages to the elderly or to the impotent?

Exactly there is no empirical standard by which one kind of marriage can be logically discarded as illegitimate or immoral. On this issue, like so many before, science will kick the conservatives' butts, and they'll again be forced to dismiss science as the maliciously deceptive, hidden-agenda posturing of a pack of pointy-headed loonies. :rolleyes:

[kettle]

If you believe that we should keep the institution of marriage solely to heterosexual relationships based on the fact that these are the only relationships that can be "sexually productive", then do you oppose granting marriages to the elderly or to the impotent?

There is no argument to win, so stop wriggling. :)
Of course I don't oppose granting marriages to the elderly or to the impotent, and you know I don't. Trying to make me look stupid in front of as many people possible does not change the point of this ceremony. It is symbolic of an ideal situation. If you require a ceremony that recognises other features, then go and do it. Please do not try to break that which is already designed for a different set of circumstances. :)

[Sayhey]

Please do not try to break that which is already designed for a different set of circumstances. :)

You are under the mistaken belief that someone is trying to break something. The whole point of the AAA letter is that there has always been other types of relationships than what is currently recognized in 21st century US marriage law. No where has any one called for changing the relationships that exist between heterosexual couples - only for allowing same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized with the same rights and benefits that already exist for heterosexual couples. To suggest otherwise is to engage in fear mongering.

[Awimoway]

It is symbolic of an ideal situation. If you require a ceremony that recognises other features, then go and do it. Please do not try to break that which is already designed for a different set of circumstances. :)

I guess the point is that no one has the authority to be the final arbiter of how far you can stretch the acceptable limits of your so-called "ideal situation."

[pseudobrit]

You are under the mistaken belief that someone is trying to break something. The whole point of the AAA letter is that there has always been other types of relationships than what is currently recognized in 21st century US marriage law.

Willful ignorance is a powerful thing.

[2jaded2care]

I have not heard anyone address the objection that allowing gay marriage will open the door to polygamy. Surely anthropologists will agree that polygamy exists in other cultures. If we are to reject "traditional" values, what is the response to this -- other than to ignore it, state that it is a "ridiculous comparison", followed by some vague sense that gays are insulted that anyone would dare bring it up... (as if anyone has a right to imply that it is any less a "legitimate" lifestyle)?

[zimv20]

I have not heard anyone address the objection that allowing gay marriage will open the door to polygamy.

a strawman argument. what's one got to do with the other?

[Awimoway]

a strawman argument. what's one got to do with the other?

Because the argument that no single form of marriage is more legitimate than any other means that you have to recognize any definition of marriage. It would be hypocritical to support the freedom of people of the same gender to marry and then turn around and forbid one person to marry more than one other person. Gender and number of spouses are both choices people want to be able to make about marriage. They are also both choices that others--those who are not interested in these choices--wish to selfishly and judgmentally forbid anyone else from practicing.

So the choice supporters of gay marriage have to make is whether or not they are willing to also support polygamous marriage. I, for one, am willing to do that. Besides, most people who want to be able to practice polygamy do so for religious reasons, and therefore laws against it are already illegitimate, in my opinion.

[Sayhey]

I have not heard anyone address the objection that allowing gay marriage will open the door to polygamy. Surely anthropologists will agree that polygamy exists in other cultures. If we are to reject "traditional" values, what is the response to this -- other than to ignore it, state that it is a "ridiculous comparison", followed by some vague sense that gays are insulted that anyone would dare bring it up... (as if anyone has a right to imply that it is any less a "legitimate" lifestyle)?

Anthropologists would certainly agree that polygamy exists in other cultures. As they say in their statement "anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." That would include polygamous relationships in some societies. However, the importance of the statement for the formulation of public policy is to show that the idea that marriage has always been one way is a lie. What we have to be about is constructing relationships and recognizing relationships that work for our society today.

In such a situation each type of marriage must be looked at separately. It makes no sense to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples other than to reinforce a particular religious tradition's view. In a society based on separation of church and state, I believe that is an unacceptable approach. If we don't have marriage determined by religious dogma, then we have to ask ourselves why should gay couples be discriminated against? I don't think a valid non-religious reason can be made for stopping same-sex consenting adults from getting married.

Assuming it is a serious question and not a red herring, why we as a society may wish to continue to ban polygamous relationships is based on very different reasons. First, as practiced in the real world of some sects of Mormonism, this often includes underage women. Second, there are considerable conflicts in the law concerning rights and responsibilities to children and dependent spouses (not to mention the problems of divorce) in polygamous relationships. Both of these questions and many others would have to be answered before we as a society should consider lifting the ban against polygamy. In short, it is very different from the ban on marriage between same-sex couples.

Anthropologists don't determine what the course of our public policy should be, but they do give us an important perspective on statements that would have us believe that marriage has "always been between a man and a woman." What we decide should at least be based on reality and not some fiction used to justify a political or religious position in the debate.

[Neserk]

I have not heard anyone address the objection that allowing gay marriage will open the door to polygamy. Surely anthropologists will agree that polygamy exists in other cultures. If we are to reject "traditional" values, what is the response to this -- other than to ignore it, state that it is a "ridiculous comparison", followed by some vague sense that gays are insulted that anyone would dare bring it up... (as if anyone has a right to imply that it is any less a "legitimate" lifestyle)?


I have. Polgamy and Polyandry are legitimate forms of marriage in a society that is overloaded one way or the other in gender. And I believe that is when you see it, historically.

[Sayhey]

Totally off topic but, Awimoway, I just watched to your signature link and it is just brilliant! Loved it.
awimoway-awimoway-awimoway-awimoway... In the Jungle (4.6 MB).

[wwworry]

actually I don't see the problem with polygamy among consenting adults either. THe problem has always been with coercement and child brides. Adults can do what they want and marry who they want to. The government should not be involved in telling adults who they can and can not marry. It's none of our business.

But I know moralists will claim that they are injured. It's a long and slippery road once you start telling people who they can marry. Next they will want to tell us what shirts we can wear, who we can pray to and what words we can speak.

[wwworry]

nor have I seen any concrete way that one couple can be injured by another couple getting married. Please someone tell me how their marriage is damaged by a gay marriage. Anyone??? and I'm not talking about the "idea" of marriage. I asking about your specific marriage.

[Ugg]

IMO, part of the backlash is due to the high failure rate of hetero marriages. With more than 50% of them ending in divorce, at least in the US, marriage is under attack but from within, not due to the black spectre of gay marriage. The government would due better to focus on reinforcing the existing institution than trying to limit it to a so called traditional group. Divorce is very expensive not only to the families involved but to society as well. All gw seems interested in doing is setting up marriage counseling for welfare recipients and telling all others to eff off.

[Sayhey]

IMO, part of the backlash is due to the high failure rate of hetero marriages. With more than 50% of them ending in divorce, at least in the US, marriage is under attack but from within, not due to the black spectre of gay marriage. The government would due better to focus on reinforcing the existing institution than trying to limit it to a so called traditional group. Divorce is very expensive not only to the families involved but to society as well. All gw seems interested in doing is setting up marriage counseling for welfare recipients and telling all others to eff off.

I think you're right, Ugg. It is interesting that we look at the rate of divorce and say that marriage is in crises. Perhaps much of what that rate is about is that our own mythology concerning marriage doesn't fit modern circumstances. Why should a "successful" marriage be one that last for one's lifetime? I would rather have the serial monogamy that goes on in many people's lives than go back to the days when divorce was outlawed or a horrible stigma on the individuals. Marriage maybe in crises from the many stresses we have in modern society or it maybe that our model of marriage needs to change. It is not under attack from the "homosexual agenda" which seems to consist of people who only want to participate in the old institution.

[Naimfan]

Gay marriage is a very complicated issue, and what has happened in the public debate is that many people try to distill it down to one or two overly simplistic points. I don't think that is realistic or constructive.

From a constitutional law perspective, I don't see how gay marriage can be prohibited after Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. Under classic equal protection analysis, one has to conclude that since marriage is a fundamental right, the state has to have a "compelling interest" to interfere with it, let alone deny it. The challenge to this is then that the state clearly has the power to regulate marriage and to deny it in certain circumstances--close blood relatives and the like.

I personally believe that the Constitution protects exactly the kind of rights involved here--this is a classic example of the majority attempting to deny rights to a minority. And I don't know that I've ever heard of a more ridiculous reason to discriminate against a person or group. Life is too short to worry about whether a man finds love with another man, or a woman with another woman.

Best,

Bob

[Doctor Q]

Society has an interest in having parents take care of children and provide them a stable home. But does society care whether couples stay together after the kids have grown up?

[pseudobrit]

I think the issue that precludes polygamy is that marriage is an exclusive contract between two people.

Quite simple, actually.

[Awimoway]

I think the issue that precludes polygamy is that marriage is an exclusive contract between two people.

Quite simple, actually.

Not simple at all. Who says it has to be between 2 people? The same people who say it has to be between straight people of opposite genders?

They're both arbitrary restrictions.

[Frohickey]

You have laws in several states saying marriage is between man and woman only. Couldn't gays go through the legal system and get their gender changed instead? This could be done as an additional legal proceeding prior to the granting of a marriage license.

Open the can of worms to allow gay marriage, and you open up the same can of worms for polygamy. How about sons marrying mothers, daughters marrying fathers? Heck, how about brother marrying sisters?

Hmm... thats a good idea. One way to get rid of the death tax. When dad dies, son/daughter gets disowned by mother, and she married him/her. Presto-chango, no more death tax.

[pseudobrit]

Not simple at all. Who says it has to be between 2 people? The same people who say it has to be between straight people of opposite genders?

They're both arbitrary restrictions.

You can have exclusivity as a clause, as it does not specify who can or cannot engage in the union and does not violate the equal protections clause of the Constitution.

It may be arbitrary, but you have to set the definitions of any contract.

[pseudobrit]

Hmm... thats a good idea. One way to get rid of the death tax. When dad dies, son/daughter gets disowned by mother, and she married him/her. Presto-chango, no more death tax.

If you're wealthy enough to be affected by the death tax, you can afford the accountant fee to make sure you aren't.

[vniow]

You have laws in several states saying marriage is between man and woman only. Couldn't gays go through the legal system and get their gender changed instead? This could be done as an additional legal proceeding prior to the granting of a marriage license.


Are you saying that your solution to fix this problem involves lying and legal deception?

[Krizoitz]

I think the issue that precludes polygamy is that marriage is an exclusive contract between two people.

Quite simple, actually.

And what used to preclude gay marriage was that marriage was an exclusive contract between a man and a woman. But Mass. and San Fran are trying to change that, along with the rest of the Gay Rights movement. And the thing is polygamists aren't going to be far behind with a similar argument. Like it or not this will set the precedent for legalization of other alternative marriage styles. Now I doubt we will see people being able to marry their dogs, but incest and polygamy are reasonable extensions based on this change of policy.

[IJ Reilly]

Oh, no doubt, no doubt. Are we scared yet?

[Frohickey]

And what used to preclude gay marriage was that marriage was an exclusive contract between a man and a woman. But Mass. and San Fran are trying to change that, along with the rest of the Gay Rights movement. And the thing is polygamists aren't going to be far behind with a similar argument. Like it or not this will set the precedent for legalization of other alternative marriage styles. Now I doubt we will see people being able to marry their dogs, but incest and polygamy are reasonable extensions based on this change of policy.

Why not allow polygamy? I mean, if you can have TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) in cellphone technology, shouldn't we have TDMA (Time Division Marriage Arrangement) as well?

Lets see... I can be married to Sarah between 6pm and 12am, Jane from 12am to 6am, Robert from 6am to 12pm, and Bryan from 12pm to 6pm. I would be only married to one person at a given instant in time. ;)

This way, everyone has a chance to get cheap medical insurance, and depending on when I die, my worldly possessions go to whomever I was married to at the time. :o

[IJ Reilly]

Why not allow polygamy?

Since you've posed the question, why don't you try answering it yourself?

[Doctor Q]

The logical path, it seems to me, is to try to agree on some facts, and then consider what public policies make sense in light of those facts.

Society has an interest in protecting those who can't protect themselves. Very likely, it has also shown an interest in long-standing social and mainstream traditions such as religious marriage, where its involvement is debatable. And society has an interest in keeping the general order and safety by regulating certain activities (think driver's licenses and building permits).

So there are really two separate issues:

1. Which unions are likely to harm those who society wants to protect? This is where we want facts, not guesses, that will tell us the situations that should be disallowed. You can't marry your child (or dog) because they can't give reasonable consent. Society is protecting them. You can't marry your first cousin, even if you both agree, because science says it is likely to harm your children. So polygamy may not be ruled out entirely, if it can be practiced in a way that doesn't interfere with society's interests. I admit that I never realized that before. I'm willing to hear scientist's reports.

2. Of the unions to which society has no objection, which should be "recognized" by law? You need permission from the government to adopt a child because the state has an interest in the child. Legal marriage has implications for taxes, inheritance, medical decisions, etc. Whatever the reason for that, we should consider whether other forms of marriage would serve those same goals or would interfere with society's other goals.

I can ask these questions but I can't answer them.

[Frohickey]

Since you've posed the question, why don't you try answering it yourself?

I say allow polygamy, because Muhammad said it was okay. Can't have government making a law establishing religion.

Polygamy is a pretty good carrot for a fledgling religion, don'tcha know?

[Sayhey]

You can't marry your first cousin, even if you both agree, because science says it is likely to harm your children.

Not true in many states. A quick search reveals this:

STATE BY STATE
States that prohibit marriage between first cousins: Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming

States that ban first-cousin marriages and also prohibit marriage between cousins once removed: Kentucky, Ohio, Nevada, Washington

States that permit marriage between first cousins, but only if one or both parties are past child-bearing age: Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Utah, Wisconsin

States that allow first cousins to marry without restrictions: Alaska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia

North Carolina permits marriage between first cousins, but not double cousins.

link (http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/sefton012004.html)

Hey, does this mean we have to stop all those Ozark incest jokes and start on California, New York, and Texas?

[JamesDPS]

Great post! This is what science is for -- to be there when a politician claims something on a practical basis to say "uh, actually, you're completely wrong, and this is why..." To limit "scientists" to a role of observation only totally misses the entire point of science, which I think is basically to gain a better understanding of the universe and how all its facets work, and to use that understanding to improve our lot in life.

[pseudobrit]

And what used to preclude gay marriage was that marriage was an exclusive contract between a man and a woman.

But the exclusivity part of the contract is the legal nature of the contract -- you make the contract with one person only -- not because of any moral hangups.

People cannot choose their race, so interracial marriage bans violate equal protection.

People cannot choose their sexuality, so gay marriage bands violate equal protection.

I'm searching for the answers myself, here. I encourage someone to punch logical holes in my line of thinking. By no means have I formed a solid stance on this issue.

[Naimfan]

Pseudo--

If you'd like to do some (VERY dry at times) reading, check out the Supreme Court decisions in Lawrence v. Texas (available here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02slipopinion.html) and in Romer v. Evans (available here: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZO.html).

You'll see that you're on the right track with respect to equal protection--many commentators don't see how gay marriage could be prevented after Lawrence.

Best,

Bob

[Frohickey]

But the exclusivity part of the contract is the legal nature of the contract -- you make the contract with one person only -- not because of any moral hangups.

People cannot choose their race, so interracial marriage bans violate equal protection.

People cannot choose their sexuality, so gay marriage bands violate equal protection.

I'm searching for the answers myself, here. I encourage someone to punch logical holes in my line of thinking. By no means have I formed a solid stance on this issue.

People cannot choose their age either...

[mactastic]

Polygamy between consenting adults should be legal. There just needs to be some frank discussion and some general rules drawn up regarding division of property, custody of children etc. Who cares? Whatever works for you. As long as you aren't marrying a 14 year old (like many Mormon polygamists are wont to do), more power to you. I dunno if I'd even want to try dealing with 2 wives though...

[Krizoitz]

But the exclusivity part of the contract is the legal nature of the contract -- you make the contract with one person only -- not because of any moral hangups.

Contracts can exist between more than two parties.


People cannot choose their race, so interracial marriage bans violate equal protection.

This is true


People cannot choose their sexuality, so gay marriage bands violate equal protection.

This MIGHT be true, but has yet to be conclusively proven. And before anyone goes off on me about how people don't choose to be gay, etc etc, know that there are people who claim to have been (and at least spent time acting like they were) gay and who say they are now straight. A theory has been fielded that homosexuality is actually more of a tendency than the way someone is born and that personal choice and environmental factors (nature vs. nurture) has some effects on it.


I'm searching for the answers myself, here. I encourage someone to punch logical holes in my line of thinking. By no means have I formed a solid stance on this issue.
I think thats true of alot of people, myself included. The problem is when you try and question any of it your either called a sinner or a bigot. I hate extremists sometimes...in fact, I think ALL extremeists should be shot :D

[2jaded2care]

I thought contracts could be entered into by more than two people / parties. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now that I've read the account of Bush's statement, even I must admit that he did overstate his case when he made it sound as though "traditional" marriage between one man and one woman was the norm among all cultures and religions. (Bush overstate something? Possible? :eek: ) Even I don't buy that. However, to my knowledge, it has been the norm in this country and most of Western civilization for centuries. (I am aware that this fact in itself makes it suspect to many of you.)

I think this would have been much easier to resolve if there existed a more distinct difference between religious marriage and, if this is the right term, civil marriage (that recognized by gov't). Much as the poster from Norway on the other gay marriage thread explained is the case in his or her country -- let there be separate ceremonies, recognitions, etc. between the two, with the gov't union being the one to determine legal benefits. This is exactly what the Massachusetts court recently struck down, I believe. I think it would have made the whole debate a bit less messy, but I guess that's just my desire to rewrite history.

I think we are looking at gay marriage within a short time, recognition of polygamy within a decade, and possibly recognition of incestuous unions down the road. The thing which was irritating me was the activists who conveniently ignored the other issues, probably because it wasn't their issue, but also because it might hurt their cause. However, I see no logical reason to ignore "tradition" to benefit one group, but not another.

I'm still not sure if I would consider modern anthropologists to be "scientists", or if they're just campus liberals who've found a field they can make money at and use to justify the conclusions they like... Arguably the most "humane" society would be one in which no one person or group has more of anything than another.

[wwworry]

None of my friends who are gay like the fact that they are threatened with violence all the time, yelled at by strangers, have to be discrete about who they find attractive who they can marry and where they can live. In short, if they had a choice, they would not chose to be gay. Many, in fact, have tried very hard to be straight but it never worked out. So lets put that hole choice thing to rest, shall we?

You people keep talking about marrying dogs but never state any reason except for dog marrying why adults can not make decisions for themselves if it does not harm others. Why is equal protection only good for some people and not others.

Nor have you slippery slope lovers addressed the fact that when they start telling you who you can marry what's to stop them from telling you who you can vote for? And what do I care if someone marries his dog? Who cares? What's worse is the govt. telling me who I can marry and who I can vote for. You, Forhicky, have to be the biggest hippocrite on this issue because you want the govt. telling us who we can marry. That is not at all Libertarian. Nor, at the moment, constitutional.

[vniow]

A theory has been fielded that homosexuality is actually more of a tendency than the way someone is born and that personal choice and environmental factors (nature vs. nurture) has some effects on it.


I suppose you chose who you were/are attracted to?

[wwworry]

I agree with 2 jaded. The govt. should if they are writing laws about married people allow consenting adults to get their licence. Churches can handle the "marriage" part. However, if a church marries someone that union should be automatically recognized by the state, if all parties are consenting adults - for convienience sake.

Lets churches marry who they want.

And anthropologists are scientists. Have you ever taken an anthropology course? The study of culture is viable and valuable.

Anthropology is the study of origins of human beings and their cultures worldwide. In addition to documenting a particular culture, anthropologists are interested in how and why human culture changes. The science of anthropology is divided into several subfields including physical anthropology, the study of the origins and development of human beings; cultural anthropology, the study of human culture or the means by which human beings sustain life; linguistics, the study of human language; and archaeology, the study of human life based primarily on the recovery of artifacts, objects made and/or used by human beings.

Forensic antropology, etc.

Do you really think we should call all that knowledge gained "not science"? Maybe we should just read our old testements and throw out anything that has happened in the past 2004 years?

[Sayhey]

I think we are looking at gay marriage within a short time, recognition of polygamy within a decade, and possibly recognition of incestuous unions down the road. The thing which was irritating me was the activists who conveniently ignored the other issues, probably because it wasn't their issue, but also because it might hurt their cause. However, I see no logical reason to ignore "tradition" to benefit one group, but not another.

I'm still not sure if I would consider modern anthropologists to be "scientists", or if they're just campus liberals who've found a field they can make money at and use to justify the conclusions they like... Arguably the most "humane" society would be one in which no one person or group has more of anything than another.


It is easy to throw all of these issues into one "bag" and call it civil liberty, but each has its own issues that must be dealt with separately. I've yet to see anyone tell me how in this society we would deal with all the ramifications for children and dependent spouses in a polygamous relationship. Do we just assume that all parental rights and obligations reside in the biological parents? If so why? In a divorce of a polygamous marriage do we demand all assets of all partners are dissolved and divided equally? What does it mean for children of divorced parents? Do only biological parents have an obligation for child support? I could go on, but there are a whole series of questions that society must deal with in recognizing polygamous marriages that we don't in marriages of a couple, same-sex or heterosexual. I have no moral outrage against such relationships (hell, I grew of age in the time of "free love" and communes), but I don't buy the argument that all these questions are the same.

2jaded2care,

anthropology is the recognized field for the study of culture. That includes the study of kinship relationships and marriage. I could just as easily have posted many historians that would argue with Bush's assertions if you would rather have those. You may disdain "liberal" professors but it would be better to try to deal with their conclusions on a factual basis rather than your personal feelings.

[2jaded2care]

No, I have never taken an anthropology course. Closest I came was a sociology course, which I dropped because I couldn't understand the mindset. I did fine with psychology courses, perhaps because those dealt more with individual behavior than group behavior.

A couple of hours surfing certainly does not make me an anthropologist, but I did find enough to get the impression that the approach called "applied" or "active" anthropology was of some controversy within the anthropological community -- seemed to be the "old guard", more of what I consider a "scientist" approach, vs. the "new guard", more of a social activist approach. 'Course, I may be wrong, or the sites I found misleading, but that's what I came away with.

[2jaded2care]

Never meant to imply that polygamy was the same as gay marriage. I'm aware that different issues would be involved. However, as I've said, I think if one accepts that gay marriage is a "civil right", one must confront these other issues. And just because polygamy would be more complicated would not be a justification for denying polygamists their "civil rights".

[Sayhey]

No, I have never taken an anthropology course. Closest I came was a sociology course, which I dropped because I couldn't understand the mindset. I did fine with psychology courses, perhaps because those dealt more with individual behavior than group behavior.

A couple of hours surfing certainly does not make me an anthropologist, but I did find enough to get the impression that the approach called "applied" or "active" anthropology was of some controversy within the anthropological community -- seemed to be the "old guard", more of what I consider a "scientist" approach, vs. the "new guard", more of a social activist approach. 'Course, I may be wrong, or the sites I found misleading, but that's what I came away with.

In every field there are different approaches. Yes, in Anthropology there are heated debates about many issues. The group I posted the opinion from is one that represents both sides of the divide you talk about. No anthropologist worth his or her salt would agree with Bush's view of marriage as only a "union of a man and a woman." Politically you may find some that agree with the direction, but not the "history lesson."

[Sayhey]

Never meant to imply that polygamy was the same as gay marriage. I'm aware that different issues would be involved. However, as I've said, I think if one accepts that gay marriage is a "civil right", one must confront these other issues. And just because polygamy would be more complicated would not be a justification for denying polygamists their "civil rights".

Agreed. I'm not saying that polygamous marriage between consenting adults should not be made legal, but I am saying that there are a lot of issues, such as the ones I raised, that should be dealt with first.

[zimv20]

So lets put that hole choice thing to rest, shall we?


:-)

[mactastic]

I suppose you chose who you were/are attracted to?

I chose who, but I didn't get to choose which gender pool I was fishing in.

[Sayhey]

:-)

very bad, zim! very bad! :p

[Frohickey]

This MIGHT be true, but has yet to be conclusively proven. And before anyone goes off on me about how people don't choose to be gay, etc etc, know that there are people who claim to have been (and at least spent time acting like they were) gay and who say they are now straight. A theory has been fielded that homosexuality is actually more of a tendency than the way someone is born and that personal choice and environmental factors (nature vs. nurture) has some effects on it.

I think thats true of alot of people, myself included. The problem is when you try and question any of it your either called a sinner or a bigot. I hate extremists sometimes...in fact, I think ALL extremeists should be shot :D

If homosexuality is genetic, shouldn't it have been bred out by now, after thousands of years?

As to having ALL extremeists shots, where? In the arm or in the leg? :p

[Frohickey]

What's worse is the govt. telling me who I can marry and who I can vote for. You, Forhicky, have to be the biggest hippocrite on this issue because you want the govt. telling us who we can marry. That is not at all Libertarian. Nor, at the moment, constitutional.

Give me a quote from my post that said I am for govt telling me who anyone can marry and who you can vote for? There is no mention of 'marriage' or 'civil union' in the US Constitution. Not one bit. Its a power reserved to the states or to the people. -10th

If some people in some states have said that the states has the power to define marriage, then fine by that state. Some states do not have marriage protection/definition laws, in these, the people retained that power.

I'm saying that in these states where the definition of marriage has been done by the state, and codified as law, that these people should either get it fixed in their state, or move to another state. I don't want creeping federalism. Best government is the one that governs least.

In saying that gay marriage can open the door for polygamous marriages, and all other sorts of intrapersonal intimate relationships, it just does. You have to be honest and look at that possibility, and its a real possibility.

As to homosexuals being threatened and yelled at, that is very bad behavior. In fact, being threatened is downright criminal. I think homosexuals should be given instantaneous CCW permits. -2nd ;)

[Frohickey]

I think the problem we have is really that encroaching federal government has brought us to where we are at.

Lincoln's war to free the slaves have blurred the line delineating the federal government vs the state governments. Now, that line is pretty much gone. Where did the federal government get the power to regulate the consumption of intoxicating liquors? They had to use manufacture, sale, or transportation to get it to stick, and thats because of the overly broad use of the Commerce clause.

And what did this give us? Organized crime. How much is the War on Drugs right now?

Back to the gay marriage topic. I say that marriage stays within the purview of the states (the ones that have made a law), or the people (if the state has not). Then each state can decide for itself whether to recognize another state's issuance of a marriage license, much like each state right now can decide for itself whether to recognize another state's CCW permit.

(But we have gone past this point, we already have big federal government, so that we can limit the can of worms to each state to fix on their own, the can of worms being gay marriage, leading to polygamous marriage, leading to whatever else a group of people want to do. So, now, we have the big federal government open the can of worms and each and every state will have to take a bite. Ewwww!!!)

Oh, and as far as the goodies that have been made available for married people, I say that married people have been freeloading off of single people. If a single person's health insurance is $100 a month, a two-person married people's health insurance should be $200 a month! :mad:

[Frohickey]

Arguably the most "humane" society would be one in which no one person or group has more of anything than another.

Be careful there. Some people here would say that the above comment is justification for the forced redistribution of wealth, or anything else that one person or group might have an abundance of and another person have a shortage of.

[pseudobrit]

Contracts can exist between more than two parties.

But a marriage contract by its legal definition is an exclusive one. That's the catch. I'm sure there are countless categories of contracts where there are legal stipulations such as inclusivity and exclusivity.

[Neserk]

You can't marry your first cousin, even if you both agree, because science says it is likely to harm your children.

My great Aunt was married to her first cousin. I don't know if it is still legal in VA though. They opted not to have children "just in case."

[pseudobrit]

People cannot choose their age either...

But they can wait.

Age is something else entirely. In order for someone to make a binding choice and/or one that requires full responsibility and carries accountability under the law, one must be mature enough to understand wholly the choice they are making.

Otherwise, your 6 year-old would be driving himself to first grade, filing taxes, paying off a credit card, smoking cigarettes with his wife while he sips his Jim Beam on voting day after pulling the lever for a straight Democratic ticket.

Hey, maybe it's not such a bad thing if they're going to vote Democratic...

[note to self: must do field study]

[iMeowbot]

Not true in many states. A quick search reveals this:

States that permit marriage between first cousins, but only if one or both parties are past child-bearing age: Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Utah, Wisconsin
Imagine that, a class of marriages allowed only on the condition that the couple can't reproduce :D

[Doctor Q]

Another thing to keep in mind. The government can steer behavior with monetary incentives and disincentives, rather then ban or require certain behaviors. If you smoke in your home, it may hurt you and possibly your family, and raise the health care costs in the country, but it has not been made illegal to smoke. Instead, the behavior is discouraged with taxes (which also help pay for the costs to society).

If certain marriages are shown to be harmful to society in some way but not so seriously that they must be banned, such practices could simply be taxed to pay for the costs they impose. For example, if polygamy harms others by using up the supply of women, perhaps the marriage license fee should double for each subsequent wife! Or maybe marriage by first-cousins should have a negative tax consequence to pay for the statistically more likely medical problems of offspring. No, I don't really suggest these things. My examples may be lousy, but my point is that government does have a way to influence behavior without having all-or-nothing laws.

[Krizoitz]

None of my friends who are gay like the fact that they are threatened with violence all the time, yelled at by strangers, have to be discrete about who they find attractive who they can marry and where they can live. In short, if they had a choice, they would not chose to be gay. Many, in fact, have tried very hard to be straight but it never worked out. So lets put that hole choice thing to rest, shall we?

Lets not. You think people on choose things when they think it will make them MORE accepted? Try hanging out in a high school, I've seen plenty of people who chose to belong to one group or another (ex. goths) knowing very well that they would be harassed because they wanted to be different.

Also just because your friends can't choose not to be gay doesn't mean that no one can. What if your friends smoked and none of them could quit? Would that mean ALL smokers can't quit?

My question is this. Lets say there is some choice involved in being gay for the sake of argument. Lets say for whatever reason those who choose to be gay enjoy it more. Now given that they want their lifestyle accepted (and that in this argument it might be a chosen lifestyle) why would they acede that it is a choice, which is one of the main arguments their oponents use against them. That is like a baseball player admitting he used steroids. As long as his opponents can't prove it then their case is weaker, why give them the evidence they need?

No obviously that isn't a conclusive argument, nor do I think its likely (some sort of vast left-wing gay choise coverup?) But it is an example of WHY they wouldn't want to admit its even partly choice related.

[wwworry]

That does seem a bit convoluted and conspiratorial.

The only people who say being gay is a choice are not gay and do not like gay people. Also, the people I know are not high school students. They are mature honest adults. Whats more likely is that homophobes are trying to deligitimize their opponents.

[Krizoitz]

I suppose you chose who you were/are attracted to?

I'm not claiming that it is ALL choice related. If homosexuality is genetically linked it may not be so much an off/on switch, either you are gay or you aren't. Instead it may be that you are more susceptible.

Take the following analogy. There are studies that show that alcholism can be something that one is more susceptible too because of certain genetic factors. Now this susceptability doesn't make one an alcholic, but it makes it easier to be one. In a similar (definitely not the same) way some people speculate that homosexuality, while being genetically linked isn't a given result. In fact there are many conditions that you can be predisposed to genetically.

So while it may be easy to simply succumb to ones homosexual tendencies, it doesn't mean that one didn't have a choice, or doesn't have a choice. Like I said environmental factors may play a part, and the decision might be gradual, not immediate, i.e. you slowly realize you have these urges and begin to accept them as normal, instead of waking up and saying, gee I think I'll be gay. I certainly think the last one sounds absurd, but the first a possibility.

I know this sounds like I'm treating homosexuality a little harshly, and I hope that any of you who are homosexual will bear with me, I'm not claiming this is the absolute truth, just a possibility.

[Krizoitz]

That does seem a bit convoluted and conspiratorial.

The only people who say being gay is a choice are not gay and do not like gay people. Also, the people I know are not high school students. They are mature honest adults. Whats more likely is that homophobes are trying to deligitimize their opponents.

My point was that people don't always choose the safe or accepted way of doing things for a variety of reasons. As for the ONLY people claiming that homosexuality isn't somewhat choice related I know people, especially in genetics fields who agree with my above post, that it may be predisposition and not an on/off switch. I have also read stories from people who claim they were gay and decided not to be (I can't vouch for whether they are telling the truth of course, but if they are true, well there you go).

I realize that this is a very controversial topic, and is very important to some people, and therfore it may be hard to take a step back and look at this analytically, but that is what I am trying to do. I'm trying to point out that the situation may not be exactly what either sideis arguing, that the truth lies somewhere in between.

[IJ Reilly]

The truth is, we don't much about the workings of the human brain. The truth is, we don't know why one person can do huge sums in their heads and not be able to spell their names, while others can paint a masterpiece but be unable to balance a checkbook. And the truth is, none of this really matters unless we're trying to find reasons to discriminate against people on the basis of how their brains work.

[Sayhey]

Krizoitz,

the trouble in your posts is not that there may be environmental or a combination of biological and environmental factors that determine if one is homosexual, but it is the assumption that first, this a condition like some illness; second, that the same environmental and/or biological factors are not at play in all sexuality; thirdly that any of this means a "choice" is made in sexuality; and lastly that any of it makes any difference in the political decisions before us in treating a substantial part of humanity as equals.

[zimv20]

it may not be so much an off/on switch, either you are gay or you aren't. Instead it may be that you are more susceptible.

you make it sound like a disease

[Neserk]

That does seem a bit convoluted and conspiratorial.

The only people who say being gay is a choice are not gay and do not like gay people.


And not one of them can tell you when exactly it was that they choose to be straight, either... that is rather telling if you ask me.

[2jaded2care]

If homosexuality is genetic, shouldn't it have been bred out by now, after thousands of years?
:p

Not necessarily, *if* bisexuality enters the equation. I don't claim to know, just throwing that out there...

[2jaded2care]

Sorry Frohickey, misedited your post and left the smiley in an awkward place. No one blame him for my mistake please.

[2jaded2care]

Be careful there. Some people here would say that the above comment is justification for the forced redistribution of wealth, or anything else that one person or group might have an abundance of and another person have a shortage of.

I said it would arguably be the most "humane". Not necessarily "achievable", "sustainable", or even "desirable"... I can't imagine what governmental powers it would take to maintain an equal distribution of resources among all people. And hopefully Kerry won't get the chance to try :D .

[2jaded2care]

If homosexuality or said tendencies are genetic, in future it theoretically would be possible to change it through genetic manipulation.

I have read that many homosexuals have stated that they did not choose to be gay, nor would they have chosen to be if it were a "choice". I wonder what the societal reaction will be if it becomes a "choice" for the parents to make.

[IJ Reilly]

Is anyone actually in favor of the generic engineering of human beings?

[zimv20]

I wonder what the societal reaction will be if it becomes a "choice" for the parents to make.

lack of interest, until someone chose "gay". then there'd be a constitutional amendment. and a war. and taxes cut.

[mactastic]

If homosexuality or said tendencies are genetic, in future it theoretically would be possible to change it through genetic manipulation.

I have read that many homosexuals have stated that they did not choose to be gay, nor would they have chosen to be if it were a "choice". I wonder what the societal reaction will be if it becomes a "choice" for the parents to make.
That's the same ethical dilemma facing us once we can manipulate for sex, strength, eye color, height, etc. If we can engineer a 'perfect' human being, should we?

[numediaman]

Is anyone actually in favor of the generic engineering of human beings?

I am. I think humans should be engineered to taste better, maintain their color and firmness, and have longer shelf life. If we can do that for the tomato, why can't we do that for humans?
;)

Question for those in favor of same-sex marriage, or at least, the defeat of this amendment: does it really matter to you whether being gay is a choice or genetics? It doesn't to me.

[Doctor Q]

Is anyone actually in favor of the generic engineering of human beings?I would be if, for example, they could change the genes for a Down's Syndrome child with no other risk or side effect. But that's a huge IF. And it's much less likely that the gene changes for a "tendency" or "trait" could be identified precisely.

Even though such a thing is improbable, you can certainly debate the question of "would we want to change people's gayness if we could?", but it won't change the fact that we have to decide how laws today apply to gays today.

Califorinia's situation is certainly going to stay lively. Governor Arnold said last night, essentially, that he would sign a law allowing gay marriage, but that he wants the current laws obeyed. So San Francisco has a mayor allowing gay marriage, with many state officials objecting, with laws on the books disallowing discrimination in general but limiting marriage to man-woman pairs, with a governor who will accept either side of the issue if the law makes it so, in a country with a president who thinks gay marriage is a threat to standard marriage.

I hope the scientists hurry up with those facts!

[vniow]

I'm not claiming that it is ALL choice related. If homosexuality is genetically linked it may not be so much an off/on switch, either you are gay or you aren't. Instead it may be that you are more susceptible.

You didn't answer the question. Do you shoose the people you are attracted to or does it just sort of happen?

[IJ Reilly]

I am. I think humans should be engineered to taste better, maintain their color and firmness, and have longer shelf life. If we can do that for the tomato, why can't we do that for humans?

I said "in favor" not "in flavor."

Seriously now folks, in answer to your question, my answer is also no. It hasn't been demonstrated to me how the state has a legitimate interest in granting gays inferior status under the law. Whether they choose to be gay or had it wired into their brain chemistry from the start is immaterial.

[Frohickey]

But they can wait.

Who was it that said a right delayed is a right denied? ;)

[IJ Reilly]

I would be if, for example, they could change the genes for a Down's Syndrome child with no other risk or side effect. But that's a huge IF. And it's much less likely that the gene changes for a "tendency" or "trait" could be identified precisely.

Even though such a thing is improbable, you can certainly debate the question of "would we want to change people's gayness if we could?", but it won't change the fact that we have to decide how laws today apply to gays today.

Genetic engineering is a classic ethical can 'o worms. Even before we knew much about genes, people were trying to breed "super humans." It was called eugenics -- one of the saddest episodes in recent human history.

Fortunately (IMO) science isn't even very close to being able to selectively engineer human genes and the general consensus is against even trying. What is starting to occur is gene screening. If you knew you carried the gene for Downs Syndrome, you might choose to adopt instead of risking a child of your own.

[Frohickey]

Is anyone actually in favor of the generic engineering of human beings?

Does this include being able to project beams of force from your eyes, being able to control weather, have super healing, and the ability to change your skin to the density of hardened steel? :p

Oh, don't forget the ability to read and control people's minds, but only if that doesn't come with going bald. :D

[Frohickey]

I said it would arguably be the most "humane". Not necessarily "achievable", "sustainable", or even "desirable"... I can't imagine what governmental powers it would take to maintain an equal distribution of resources among all people. And hopefully Kerry won't get the chance to try :D .

You do not need to imagine.

These societal experiments were already done during the 1920s, through the 1940s, and is still being done today. Unfortunately, humans are imperfect beings. And I don't think humans would subject themselves to a machine to determine how society operates, hmm... another imperfection, hubris. Wait, if humans are imperfect, how can they make a perfect machine to determine operation of society, wouldn't that be imperfect as well?

[2jaded2care]

Sorry to introduce a thread-derailer into this. One more and I'll leave it be.

If a genetic trait, it might also be related to a chemical imbalance -- too much or too little of some chemical. Might be "correctable" with drugs.

I can just see it now:

"Oh hi honey, this is Bill."

"John, you forgot your medication again ?!" :)

[Frohickey]

If certain marriages are shown to be harmful to society in some way but not so seriously that they must be banned, such practices could simply be taxed to pay for the costs they impose. For example, if polygamy harms others by using up the supply of women, perhaps the marriage license fee should double for each subsequent wife! Or maybe marriage by first-cousins should have a negative tax consequence to pay for the statistically more likely medical problems of offspring. No, I don't really suggest these things. My examples may be lousy, but my point is that government does have a way to influence behavior without having all-or-nothing laws.

Actually, I think gay marriages are a good idea, if I were a rabid environmentalist.

You see, a gay marriage would be incapable of producing offspring, and environmentalists are the ones that have been saying all along that people are bad, and that people are not part of nature, and that people are the cause of everything bad in the world, and that all the mass extinctions that have happened on Earth are caused by humans.

(Erp. Wonder how the dinosaurs got extincted when Homo Sapiens were not even around. Oh, I get it. It must be some evil capitalist corporate type with big money, and the support of a corrupt capitalist republican government that sent a group of capitalist scientists back in time using their time machine in order to secure a sample of DNA to make a theme park with real live dinosaurs.) ;)

[Frohickey]

If its a chemical imbalance, it could be caused by environmental factors.

Hmm... I smell a class action lawsuit coming against General Motors, Ford, Texaco, Mobil, Shell, Conoco, Edison International, Monsanto, (add some to this list if I have forgotten a few).

[mactastic]

Actually, I think gay marriages are a good idea, if I were a rabid environmentalist.

You see, a gay marriage would be incapable of producing offspring, and environmentalists are the ones that have been saying all along that people are bad, and that people are not part of nature, and that people are the cause of everything bad in the world, and that all the mass extinctions that have happened on Earth are caused by humans.

(Erp. Wonder how the dinosaurs got extincted when Homo Sapiens were not even around. Oh, I get it. It must be some evil capitalist corporate type with big money, and the support of a corrupt capitalist republican government that sent a group of capitalist scientists back in time using their time machine in order to secure a sample of DNA to make a theme park with real live dinosaurs.) ;)

Wow, you consistently and willfully misrepresent your opposition don't you?

(BTW Your dinosaur theory is wrong, they went extinct because they all promised to volunteer their time and resources to those in need if only the cheif dino would stop taking their stuff and handing it out to the ones who couldn't hunt/gather as well as the others. Too bad, 'cause when it came down to it, none of them actually voluntarily gave, and one dinosaur managed to accumulate all the goodies but then all the others died off and he was left alone without anyone to pass on his genes to.) :D

[Frohickey]

Wow, you consistently and willfully misrepresent your opposition don't you?

(BTW Your dinosaur theory is wrong, they went extinct because they all promised to volunteer their time and resources to those in need if only the cheif dino would stop taking their stuff and handing it out to the ones who couldn't hunt/gather as well as the others. Too bad, 'cause when it came down to it, none of them actually voluntarily gave, and one dinosaur managed to accumulate all the goodies but then all the others died off and he was left alone without anyone to pass on his genes to.) :D

Its called sarcasm... here is the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm) definition.

[mactastic]

Its called sarcasm... here is the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm) definition.

We all know how well sarcasm translates online. That's why most of us use a liberal application of smiley faces around sarcastic comments. Your's had none, so it was treated like an actual comment. Your dinosaur comment was taken as sarcasm because you put a smiley after it. Just a hint.

[Krizoitz]

Krizoitz,

the trouble in your posts is not that there may be environmental or a combination of biological and environmental factors that determine if one is homosexual, but it is the assumption that first, this a condition like some illness; second, that the same environmental and/or biological factors are not at play in all sexuality; thirdly that any of this means a "choice" is made in sexuality; and lastly that any of it makes any difference in the political decisions before us in treating a substantial part of humanity as equals.

Technically it is a genetic anomaly, whether that is significant in terms of whether people have rights is a different matter.

Second point. Those factors ARE in play in all sexuality, however they don't affect those who don't have the susceptability towards being attracted to the same sex.

Third point, yes it means there is some choice available, even if it isn't conscious, a person if aware of it could theoretically decide not to be homosexual.

Fourth point, I never claimed it was any reason to deny them rights, anymore than blind people should be discriminated against because they are different, or as per my previous example alcholics. You don't discriminate against someone for having alcholic tendencies. Heck if alcholism weren't dangerous to the person or people around them we would have no reason to discourage it in people. As long as homosexuality doesn't present a hazard than we have no reason to ask people not to be homosexual, if in fact it is a choice.

[Doctor Q]

I'm sure we can all agree on one thing: Sarcasm should be bred out of the species by tampering with genes. ;) And sarcasm should be heavily taxed to discourage it. ;) And marriages between pairs of sarcastic people should be banned. ;)

[Rower_CPU]

Its called sarcasm... here is the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm) definition.

Actually, it's called being an ass.

Keep it up and you'll be banned - here's the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=banned).

[Frohickey]

We all know how well sarcasm translates online. That's why most of us use a liberal application of smiley faces around sarcastic comments. Your's had none, so it was treated like an actual comment. Your dinosaur comment was taken as sarcasm because you put a smiley after it. Just a hint.

I don't remember seeing the guidelines for the number of smileys for a sarcastic comment. Is that near the rules and regulations for civil discussion? Cuz I don't remember seeing it.

[Krizoitz]

You didn't answer the question. Do you shoose the people you are attracted to or does it just sort of happen?

I chose not to answer the question because it is a common diversionary tactic that has nothing to do with my argument. But since you bring it up again I will.

No I did not choose. However before you claim that the theory I have presented is wrong, and that because I didn't choose than gay people didn't choose, think about it. Heterosexuality IS the regular/normal behavior, homosexuality would be a deviant trait, this theory postulates that one who is gay is susceptible to attraction to the same sex. Under this theory a straight person wouldn't be. For a straight person to choose anything they must go completely against there inherent nature. For a gay person, under this theory, that barrier is much weaker. An analogy, a straight persons sexuality is like two banks of a river. They stand on the heterosexual side, and in between them and the homosexual side is deadly fast, rushing river. There is no possibility of crossing it alive, none. So they have no choice but to be straight. For a gay person the river is much gentler, therefore it is possible for them to cross over it.

Now as I have said, this is only one theory, and it is irrellavent to whether or not they should get equal treatment under the law in my opinion, even if it is partly choice rleated it would be like discriminating against someone because of religion. The point is that for a straight person there is no choice, the ability to choose, consciously or not, is exactly what makes a person able to be homosexual, or bisexual (which I suppose would be someone standing in the middle of the river ;) )

[wwworry]

Give me a quote from my post that said I am for govt telling me who anyone can marry and who you can vote for? There is no mention of 'marriage' or 'civil union' in the US Constitution. Not one bit. Its a power reserved to the states or to the people. -10th

If some people in some states have said that the states has the power to define marriage, then fine by that state. Some states do not have marriage protection/definition laws, in these, the people retained that power.

I'm saying that in these states where the definition of marriage has been done by the state, and codified as law, that these people should either get it fixed in their state, or move to another state. I don't want creeping federalism. Best government is the one that governs least.

In saying that gay marriage can open the door for polygamous marriages, and all other sorts of intrapersonal intimate relationships, it just does. You have to be honest and look at that possibility, and its a real possibility.

As to homosexuals being threatened and yelled at, that is very bad behavior. In fact, being threatened is downright criminal. I think homosexuals should be given instantaneous CCW permits. -2nd ;)

Well there is that pesky 14th amendment that says that all laws should apply equally to all people.

And isn't a state just a more localized kind of federal govt.? Why should a state be able to do all those terrible things you critisize the Federal govt. doing. Shouldn't a state government also get out of our bedrooms and churches? To me it makes no difference if a state is limiting freedom of the federal government is limiting freedom. It's wrong. Don't you think? ;)

The slippery slope argument is kind of a blah one. It means regulating one thing on the belief that some other kind of thing will become unregulated sometime in the future. Logically it's weak.

[wwworry]

Did my left handed argument ever get posted? The one where left handed people are in nearly the same proportion as homosexual people are to the whole and left handed people were seen as devilish at one point?

darn dial up

Even if it is a choice what's so bad about it?

[Frohickey]

Well there is that pesky 14th amendment that says that all laws should apply equally to all people.

And isn't a state just a more localized kind of federal govt.? Why should a state be able to do all those terrible things you critisize the Federal govt. doing. Shouldn't a state government also get out of our bedrooms and churches? To me it makes no difference if a state is limiting freedom of the federal government is limiting freedom. It's wrong. Don't you think? ;)

The slippery slope argument is kind of a blah one. It means regulating one thing on the belief that some other kind of thing will become unregulated sometime in the future. Logically it's weak.

Yes, there is the 14th amendment which is what it took to get the anti-slavery laws to gain teeth in the conquered states. Too bad Lincoln died, US Grant had Lincoln's ear, and he urged going soft but firm on the conquered states.

As to why bring it to the states instead, its because definition of marriage is not spelled out in the US Constitution, which limits federal government power. If each individual state constitution has the same 10th amendment provision, then its up to each person (or could be county, or whatever subdivision is next in line).

Sure, government in our private non-harm lives is a bad idea. Thats why a DOMA would be bad since now you have the camel's nose under the tent. (Slippery slope) Keep it at the state level, or the people level instead. Then, you can have each individual state decide which type of marriage from another state they will recognize. If there is no law, then all are recognized.

[zimv20]

For a gay person, under this theory, that barrier is much weaker. An analogy, a straight persons sexuality is like two banks of a river. They stand on the heterosexual side, and in between them and the homosexual side is deadly fast, rushing river. There is no possibility of crossing it alive, none. So they have no choice but to be straight. For a gay person the river is much gentler, therefore it is possible for them to cross over it.

here's how it was explained to me by a friend of mine, a lesbian:

her: what do you think about kissing a man?
me: eww.
her: what about giving him head?
me: i definitely don't want to do that.
her: why not?
me: i think it's disgusting. i couldn't go through with it.
her: now you know how i feel.

[Sayhey]

Technically it is a genetic anomaly, whether that is significant in terms of whether people have rights is a different matter.

Second point. Those factors ARE in play in all sexuality, however they don't affect those who don't have the susceptability towards being attracted to the same sex.

Third point, yes it means there is some choice available, even if it isn't conscious, a person if aware of it could theoretically decide not to be homosexual.

Fourth point, I never claimed it was any reason to deny them rights, anymore than blind people should be discriminated against because they are different, or as per my previous example alcholics. You don't discriminate against someone for having alcholic tendencies. Heck if alcholism weren't dangerous to the person or people around them we would have no reason to discourage it in people. As long as homosexuality doesn't present a hazard than we have no reason to ask people not to be homosexual, if in fact it is a choice.

Krizoitz,

do you have any idea how offensive all you comparisons of homosexuality to alcoholism, blindness, and genetic anomalies are? If, and this is a big if, homosexuality is a genetic trait then why would you value this trait less than another. Do you call blue eyes or blonde hair genetic anomalies? You admit that environmental and or biological factors may play a role in all sexuality and yet persist in looking at heterosexuality as the "normal" that is somehow not effected by these anomalies. Much more likely is the idea that human sexual behavior falls within a broad spectrum of behaviors and homosexuality is only one part of that spectrum. It is all "normal."

As to the idea of choice, let me say that if environmental factors are responsible for 100% of our sexual orientation, it still does not mean we have a choice. Every person has a unique history and if the environmental factors that shape a person's sexuality are a unique set of a multitude of events then how do we make a choice to be formed by those events? Add to this the fact that we all have unique biology (our DNA), and the possible billions upon billions of different interactions of different biology to different environmental factors and what you have is an impossible set of factors to untangle to understand the complexity of human sexuality. It is not because some boy has an overbearing mother or a weak father or any of the other clap trap that we threw out long ago. Too many people are looking for simple answers to very complex issues and coming up with garbage to support a preexisting agenda.

Lastly, I glad that you don't use these arguments for supporting discrimination. In that regard we both agree.

[Krizoitz]

Krizoitz,

do you have any idea how offensive all you comparisons of homosexuality to alcoholism, blindness, and genetic anomalies are? If, and this is a big if, homosexuality is a genetic trait then why would you value this trait less than another. Do you call blue eyes or blonde hair genetic anomalies? You admit that environmental and or biological factors may play a role in all sexuality and yet persist in looking at heterosexuality as the "normal" that is somehow not effected by these anomalies. Much more likely is the idea that human sexual behavior falls within a broad spectrum of behaviors and homosexuality is only one part of that spectrum. It is all "normal."

As to the idea of choice, let me say that if environmental factors are responsible for 100% of our sexual orientation, it still does not mean we have a choice. Every person has a unique history and if the environmental factors that shape a person's sexuality are a unique set of a multitude of events then how do we make a choice to be formed by those events? Add to this the fact that we all have unique biology (our DNA), and the possible billions upon billions of different interactions of different biology to different environmental factors and what you have is an impossible set of factors to untangle to understand the complexity of human sexuality. It is not because some boy has an overbearing mother or a weak father or any of the other clap trap that we threw out long ago. Too many people are looking for simple answers to very complex issues and coming up with garbage to support a preexisting agenda.

Lastly, I glad that you don't use these arguments for supporting discrimination. In that regard we both agree.

I do realize how offensive it may sound and for that i have apologized, if I could find a better comparison believe me I would have used it. I also believe that I have stated that environmental factors are NOT 100% responsible just mostly, and even if they are, given the conscious effort one could theoretically change if one were so inclined. Now I'm not saying that they necessarilly have any reason to, just that it MIGHT be possible. This whole thread of my thought was in response to one person who claimed that it was somehow beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality was not in any way choice related. I don't think that that has been proven and I was putting forth a theory that tried to explain that.

Also, in regards to the idea that our diverse DNA leads to a non-understandable variety of choices, that we cant understand human sexuality, the same could be said for any human behavior, and yet there are two flaws with this argument. First our DNA is far far far more similar than different. Second we do understand complex behaviors of people from different social and historical backgrounds that lead to the same type of behavior, the entire science of psychology relies on that very principle.

[Sayhey]

Also, in regards to the idea that our diverse DNA leads to a non-understandable variety of choices, that we cant understand human sexuality, the same could be said for any human behavior, and yet there are two flaws with this argument. First our DNA is far far far more similar than different. Second we do understand complex behaviors of people from different social and historical backgrounds that lead to the same type of behavior, the entire science of psychology relies on that very principle.

My only point about the interaction of biology and environment is that what one outside stimulus may mean to one individual may well be unique to that individual. It is not possible to point to one environmental cause or set of causes for homosexuality. Secondly, and more importantly, there is no connection between choice and environmental cause. You assume because we may be programmed by our experiences to be attracted to one gender or the other that we can therefore decide to change that orientation. There is no evidence that is true. You do know what the American Psychiatric Association's (http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm) view is on all of this don't you? If not please read this:

In December 1973, the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSMII). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning. These experts found that homosexuality does not meet these criteria.

The Board recognized that a significant portion of gay and lesbian people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation and showed no signs of psychopathology. It was also found that homosexuals were able to function effectively in society, and those who sought treatment most often did so for reasons other than their homosexuality.

When the DSMIII was published in 1980 homosexuality was not included although "ego dystonic homosexuality" was recognized as a category for people "whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same sex and who are either disturbed by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation."

When the DSMIII was revised in 1987, "ego dystonic homosexuality" was deleted as a separate diagnostic entity because "In the United States, almost all people who are homosexual first go through a phase in which their homosexuality is ego dystonic." (DSMIIIR)

"Reparative Therapy"

"Reparative therapy," also known as conversion therapy, is a term that is used to describe treatment attempts to change a person from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of "reparative therapy" as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989).

There are a few reports in the literature of efforts to use psychotherapeutic and counseling techniques to treat persons troubled by their homosexuality who desire to become heterosexual; however, results have not been conclusive, nor have they been replicated. There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual person's deep seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex.

Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so.

APA Position Statement on Homosexuality

The American Psychiatric Association is officially on record with the following position statements:

Homosexuality

Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association calls on all international health organizations, and individual psychiatrists in other countries, to urge the repeal in their own country of legislation that penalizes homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. And further, the APA calls on these organizations and individuals to do all that is possible to decrease the stigma related to homosexuality wherever and whenever it may occur. (December 1992) ....

Discrimination Based on Gender or Sexual Orientation

Irrational employment discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation has received considerable attention in law, business, sociology, and, to a lesser degree, psychology. It is well known that sexual harassment and other forms of irrational gender-based employment discrimination are potentially severe occupational stressors. Complaints of sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination have increased in recent years, and this trend is likely to continue because employees are increasingly aware of legal prohibitions against these and other forms of employment discrimination. While the psychiatric needs of self-identified discrimination victims have been under-recognized, both in and out of the workplace, psychiatrists can expect increasing consultations regarding these issues. It is important that psychiatrists appreciate and help others to understand the emotional consequences of irrational employment discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. (June 1988)

Homosexuality and Civil Rights

Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, therefore, be it resolved that the American Psychiatric Association deplores all public and private discrimination against homosexuals in such areas as employment, housing, public accommodation, and licensing, and declares that no burden of proof of such judgment, capacity, or reliability shall be placed upon homosexuals greater than that imposed on any other persons. Further, the American Psychiatric Association supports and urges the enactment of civil rights legislation at the local, state, and federal level that would offer homosexual citizens the same protections now guaranteed to others on the basis of race, creed, color, etc.

Further, the American Psychiatric Association supports and urges the repeal of all discriminatory legislation singling out homosexual acts by consenting adults in private.

(The American Psychiatric Association is, of course, aware that many other persons in addition to homosexuals are irrationally denied their civil rights on the basis of pejorative connotations derived from diagnostic or descriptive terminology used in psychiatry and deplores all such discrimination. This resolution singles out discrimination against homosexuals only because of the pervasive discriminatory acts directed against this group and the arbitrary laws directed against homosexual behavior.) (November 1973)

italics added and edited for length

[IJ Reilly]

I do realize how offensive it may sound and for that i have apologized, if I could find a better comparison believe me I would have used it.

Think of your difficulty finding a non-offensive analogy as a clear message.

[Krizoitz]

My only point about the interaction of biology and environment is that what one outside stimulus may mean to one individual may well be unique to that individual. It is not possible to point to one environmental cause or set of causes for homosexuality. Secondly, and more importantly, there is no connection between choice and environmental cause. You assume because we may be programmed by our experiences to be attracted to one gender or the other that we can therefore decide to change that orientation. There is no evidence that is true. You do know what the American Psychiatric Association's (http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm) view is on all of this don't you? If not please read this:



italics added and edited for length

Sayhey, first I would like to thank you for providing a well reasoned disussion that you back up with evidence, and taking the time to read what I write instead of jumping to conclusions, its refreshing to have some civil discussions in the politcal/war forum. This article does a good job of pointing out the lack of evidence to support the theory I put out and I respect that. I do agree completely that regardless of the implications that discrimination is still not justified.

[Krizoitz]

Think of your difficulty finding a non-offensive analogy as a clear message.

Feel free to take from it what you will, but my lack of finding a good analogy only indicates that I have been incredibly tired lately. Regardless analogies aren't exact comparisons, it is just meant to illustrate an idea. I stated clearly that I wasn't saying that homosexuality has the same negative consequences as alcholism, just that there are similarities in the situation I was discribing.

[iMeowbot]

If homosexuality or said tendencies are genetic, in future it theoretically would be possible to change it through genetic manipulation.

Genetic influence isn't that exact. If genes were more than a recipe, there would be no variation among plants that reproduce asexually, or between identical twins or clones; but clearly there are differences. One striking example was Copy Cat (http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/SU102001/copycat.html): same DNA, completely different coat, because the two cats developed a bit differently well before they were born.

"Environmental" differences don't necessarily mean differences in the outside world. They can be very local, happen extremely early, and be completely out of the control of would-be gene designers.

[mactastic]

I don't remember seeing the guidelines for the number of smileys for a sarcastic comment. Is that near the rules and regulations for civil discussion? Cuz I don't remember seeing it.

Do the rules for civil discussion include gross mischaractoriztion of your opponent, then saying oh haha, that was just sarcasm don't take me seriously? I don't remember seeing that one.

[IJ Reilly]

Feel free to take from it what you will, but my lack of finding a good analogy only indicates that I have been incredibly tired lately. Regardless analogies aren't exact comparisons, it is just meant to illustrate an idea. I stated clearly that I wasn't saying that homosexuality has the same negative consequences as alcholism, just that there are similarities in the situation I was discribing.

I don't believe a less offensive analogy exists for what you are trying to argue, so you might want to consider if whether what you are trying to argue isn't inherently offensive. Just give this some thought, is all I'm asking.

[2jaded2care]

Krizoitz,

do you have any idea how offensive all you comparisons of homosexuality to alcoholism, blindness, and genetic anomalies are?

To include blindness in this sentence strikes me as somewhat offensive. Granted, it is considered a "handicap", but is being compared to a blind person (in a physical sense, not an intentionally insulting, metaphorical sense) that objectionable? I'm not just trying to yank anyone's chain or just be contrary here, I'm serious. Would a gay person be offended that a blind person was offended at being compared to a homosexual? I would think so.

That said, I would argue that being "offended" at someone's argument does not prove anything other than that the argument might be politically incorrect. I don't think science has all the answers here yet, and it may never, if indeed it could. One is of course free to find anything offensive, but lacking hard scientific evidence or scientific consensus, one should not discount a theory on the basis of subjective "offensiveness". (Hopefully these are the theories which science tries to disprove first.)

PS - Hope I didn't offend anyone with this post :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

To say that any given argument is "offensive" is not necessary to say that it gives one discomfort in some generalized way. It can also be to say that it offends logic or intelligence. In fact, ironically, the squishy sort of PC-style offense seems to be central to the argument used by the opponents of same-sex marriage.

[Sayhey]

To include blindness in this sentence strikes me as somewhat offensive. Granted, it is considered a "handicap", but is being compared to a blind person (in a physical sense, not an intentionally insulting, metaphorical sense) that objectionable? I'm not just trying to yank anyone's chain or just be contrary here, I'm serious. Would a gay person be offended that a blind person was offended at being compared to a homosexual? I would think so.

That said, I would argue that being "offended" at someone's argument does not prove anything other than that the argument might be politically incorrect. I don't think science has all the answers here yet, and it may never, if indeed it could. One is of course free to find anything offensive, but lacking hard scientific evidence or scientific consensus, one should not discount a theory on the basis of subjective "offensiveness". (Hopefully these are the theories which science tries to disprove first.)

PS - Hope I didn't offend anyone with this post :rolleyes:

You didn't offend me with your points. I think you use interchangeably the word "blindness" with that of "blind person" in order to make it seem like my point was that blind people are somehow inferior. If you go back and reread my post I think you will agree that was not what I was saying.

I agree that because an idea is "offensive" doesn't make it wrong. It is, however, a good idea to know that you are offending people with the statements you are making. As far as I'm concerned, Krizoitz and I, are in general agreement on the most important points (to me anyway - those concerning discrimination) in this discussion. That doesn't mean we can't disagree on other points, and yes, on the use of some analogies.

[2jaded2care]

Sayhey, I don't really see the subtle distinction you're making right now. I'll ruminate on it and maybe it'll come to me.

I wasn't intentionally trying to give your comment a negative connotation, that's just how it seemed to me. I'll admit the possibility I misunderstood it somehow.

I also would point out something which is not always obvious or easy to keep in mind -- it is possible for people to be offended by our views, even if no offense is intended. (An example is our state's flag controversy, at least to some degree.)

[vniow]

No I did not choose.



If you didn't choose why do you expect that we do?

And what makes this "river" you speak of easier to cross for us? What makes you think that we would even have the desire to cross it if the choice was avalible? I really don't get why people still try to pull the choice argument, its quite funny, no one I know chooses who they're attracted to and none of the gay (or straight) people who have posted in the various related threads have said that they chose who they were attracted to, its quite funny that people still believe that it even could be despite all the testimonies otherwise...

[Krizoitz]

If you didn't choose why do you expect that we do?

And what makes this "river" you speak of easier to cross for us? What makes you think that we would even have the desire to cross it if the choice was avalible? I really don't get why people still try to pull the choice argument, its quite funny, no one I know chooses who they're attracted to and none of the gay (or straight) people who have posted in the various related threads have said that they chose who they were attracted to, its quite funny that people still believe that it even could be despite all the testimonies otherwise...

I expect it MIGHT be possible based on some theories that say homosexualty is a genetic aberation that doesn't cause you to be attracted specificically to the other sex, just makes it more likely you can be. This "river" is easier to cross because of that. Lets say your standard heterosexual has 0% chance of being attracted to the opposite sex, and that homosexual genetic factors (whatever they may be) increase that chance. Some people feel that ALL people have that range its just that without the genetic disposition most people who have low percentage are easily influenced to the heterosexual side or are completely heterosexual. Bisexuals may be towards the middle with 40-60% chance of being attracted to the same sex, but because its not strong one way or the other they go both ways, and gays may go from 60-100%. It is possible that for some or most gays there IS no choice involved, but it doesn't rule out the possibility.

As for testemonies, first, they may not even be aware that they have a choice, and as long as they are happy the way they are they have no need to choose. Second, there are also testemonies from some people who claim they were gay and are straight, I can not verify the veracity of these claims, but if even one is true it means that some choice is involved.

Regardless, this remains only a theory, and I only brought it up because someone claimed that it was absolutely certain that there is no choice involved. I get very frustrated when people say things like that without any evidence to back it up. I have no problem with them believing that there is no choice involved, and for all I know they could be right. But they could be wrong. Now I think there is enough proof to rule out the idea of people waking up one day and saying "Gee I think I'll be gay now" but the possibility that its not some genetic off/on switch has yet to be disproven.

What I have postulated above is only a theory, as I have said many many times. I am not trying to claim that this is the way it is. I have also stated that I don't think it has any bearing in regards to rights and equality. I personally am offended by Bush's propposed ammendmant and what it represents. I personally have my own religious views on homsexual marriage, but I don't think that means I get to apply them to the rest of the country. I realize that many if not all Gay people believe it is not a choice, thats fine they have every right to believe that, just as I have every right to believe in God but just because I believe it doesn't mean its true, and just because someone has another theory to explain it doesn't make them wrong.

[vniow]

I expect it MIGHT be possible based on some theories that say homosexualty is a genetic aberation that doesn't cause you to be attracted specificically to the other sex, just makes it more likely you can be. This "river" is easier to cross because of that.

In order to define abnormality you must also define what is normal and that is most certainly not easy to do within the vast world of sexuality where few things are absolute. Normality does not always equal the majority either, especially in sex. Perhaps a variation would be a better word to use instead of ones like aberration or abnormality since I don't feel that they accurately describe homosexuality and related behavours, plus I am personally offended that someone would call my attraction to another woman an aberration or an anomaly.

And that's really what its all about isn't it? The attraction itself. Granted you choose who you have sex with and you chose who you wish to be in a relationship with but that does not mean that you choose to be attracted to them and even you have stated that you don't choose who you're attracted to and I know of no one personally nor have I seen any research which has said to the contrary, chances are anyone you talk to will say that they did not choose the person they were attracted to and if they do for whatever reason, dig a little deeper and you'll probably find that they can't think of a reason that would adequately explain the attraction itself and why it exists.

This river that you continue to speak of I repeat, is no easier to cross for gays as it is for straights. I've kissed a guy before. It was icky. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad if he had shaved but that wouldn't have changed the fact that he was a guy. Why would anyone want to cross it if they could in the first place? I would most certainly live 100% of my life on the "abnormal" side rather than swim over to the "normal" side and live a lie with someone I wasn't attracted to.

You have stated before:

No I did not choose. However before you claim that the theory I have presented is wrong, and that because I didn't choose than gay people didn't choose, think about it. Heterosexuality IS the regular/normal behavior, homosexuality would be a deviant trait, this theory postulates that one who is gay is susceptible to attraction to the same sex. Under this theory a straight person wouldn't be.

But then you state in a later post:

Second, there are also testemonies from some people who claim they were gay and are straight, [...]

For a straight person to choose anything they must go completely against there inherent nature.

Now before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth think about this: if there are people out there what went from gay to straight, wouldn't it be logical to assume that you could go from straight to gay? This has in fact happened in many many cases, often (but not always) it will occur after all the kids have grown up and are out of the house and possibly a death or divorce from their spouse, the person previously identified as 100% heterosexual but all of a sudden they find themselves in a relationship with someone of the same gender! Maybe they were in denial of their true sexuality until they were in a place in their life where they felt it could be expressed, maybe they were just curious to see how a relationship of that type is like, maybe they really were straight before and something flipped and now they're gay. This we do not know and may never know but what really matters is that it has happened and is happening. If your theory is correct about barriers and rivers and how much easier it is to cross from gay to straight rather than straight to gay then people like this would not exist. The only barrier is the particular individuals comfort level with their own sexuality, their society's comfort level with various forms of attraction and how much they are influenced by their society. I personally have found no logical reason for someone's gender to be a discrimitory factor in regards to who I wish to be in a relationship with but that does not mean I am attracted to men as well as women, that just means that if I find myself attracted to a man, then there's no reason why the fact that he is a man would be a negating factor, that just seems silly in my mind.


For a gay person, under this theory, that barrier is much weaker. An analogy, a straight persons sexuality is like two banks of a river. They stand on the heterosexual side, and in between them and the homosexual side is deadly fast, rushing river. There is no possibility of crossing it alive, none. So they have no choice but to be straight. For a gay person the river is much gentler, therefore it is possible for them to cross over it.

It is possible that for some or most gays there IS no choice involved, but it doesn't rule out the possibility.

As for testemonies, first, they may not even be aware that they have a choice, and as long as they are happy the way they are they have no need to choose. Second, there are also testemonies from some people who claim they were gay and are straight, I can not verify the veracity of these claims, but if even one is true it means that some choice is involved.

You're right. Choice is involved but not how you would think. As I posted above, people do not choose the other people in which they are attracted to. This is repeated by many individuals and many researchers, even the secular gay conversion group NARTH (http://narth.com/docs/queen.html) states that it is not a choice (at least a conscious one which admitally makes sense and goes for both gays as well as straights (near the bottom))

All behavior, of course, ultimately has a biological substrate. The best theories and research available indicate that homosexuality, transgenderism, and all of its variants are likely polygenic and multifactorial in origin. Moreover, what is even clearer is that sexual attractions are fluid; and though individuals do not consciously choose their attractions, how they respond to those attractions does involve a choice.

That statement (as opposed to pretty much everything else on that site), corresponds with the statements I have posted above as well as being echoed by those within the gay community and much of the straight community. You do not (consciously) choose your attraction (to another person) but you do choose the response to those. In other words, its not who or what you're attracted to in which choice is involved, its what are you going to do about it. The unconscious angle is an interesting one and makes sense to me on a lot of levels. Whether those unconscious feelings arise from learned behaviours or inherent from birth we may never know (although I would say its like a mound of clay, you can take a mound of clay and mould it to whatever wou wish, a cat, a doughnut, a pot, etc. but in the end you don't have a cat or a doughnut or a pot, you merely have some clay formed in the image of the said objects, changing the form of the clay does not mean you change the fact that it is clay, this does not mean that the mounds are less valid than the clay itself, the pot for example is probably the best demonstration I posted since it both functions as clay and a pot, the cat and doughnut on the other hand....) and I doubt it matters in the long run, the only thing that really should matter in regards to who you're attracted to is if you're going to make your life a loving one but not at the expense of others.

[IJ Reilly]

A friendly word of advice: Just because you can post in orange text, doesn't mean you should. It's very hard to read. :)

[Doctor Q]

Same-sex marriage has been legal in the Netherlands and in Belgium for a couple of years. It seems likely that social scientists would have studied the effects. I wonder what they were?

[jelloshotsrule]

ok, i just finished reading this monster.... i forget who posed the question but:

no, to me it doesn't matter if it's a choice or if it's genetic... that said, to the greater religious community, it does, unfortunately... as such, i'd have a hard time convincing my catholic parents/relatives that it isn't against god's vision of a pro-creative, etc.. marriage.

there are plenty of religious people (i prefer to call myself spiritual as i find a lot of church traditions to be unimportant/bad) out there who do see it as a human issue (ie, why should we discriminate against humans)...

i find it hard to look a "christian" in the eye, knowing full well that jesus taught forgiveness, acceptance, love, compassion,etc, and have them try to tell me that these people (gay folks) are horrible, etc... yeah, that's "love"... even if i were to think of homosexuality as a sin (i don't), who the hell am i to judge people? i do plenty of "wrong" things... i think drinking is wrong and has plenty of bad effects on people, but do i expect us to outlaw that?


in conclusion, ignore my mindless banter. hah

[Frohickey]

i find it hard to look a "christian" in the eye, knowing full well that jesus taught forgiveness, acceptance, love, compassion,etc, and have them try to tell me that these people (gay folks) are horrible, etc... yeah, that's "love"... even if i were to think of homosexuality as a sin (i don't), who the hell am i to judge people? i do plenty of "wrong" things... i think drinking is wrong and has plenty of bad effects on people, but do i expect us to outlaw that?

I still think that it should not be outlawed at the FEDERAL level.

Let each state deal with the definition of marriage, if its already in their state constitution. Lets each county deal with the definition of marriage, otherwise, let each couple deal with it on their own.

Somehow, we have gotten away from the idea of "governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed". Its time to get rid of the additional benefits/rights granted by the government because of marital status. But you are not going to hear this from the news media, or from GWBush. Both would rather have government keep on getting more powerful, at the expense of the people.

[Krizoitz]

Same-sex marriage has been legal in the Netherlands and in Belgium for a couple of years. It seems likely that social scientists would have studied the effects. I wonder what they were?

Two years is not nearly enough time to look at the effects of gay marriage. You don't have enough time yet to see how it impacts society longterm, child raising, divorce rates, domestic abuse, stability, etc. I'm certain social scientists are starting to study, but its just too soon for results.

[Krizoitz]

i find it hard to look a "christian" in the eye, knowing full well that jesus taught forgiveness, acceptance, love, compassion,etc, and have them try to tell me that these people (gay folks) are horrible, etc... yeah, that's "love"... even if i were to think of homosexuality as a sin (i don't), who the hell am i to judge people? i do plenty of "wrong" things... i think drinking is wrong and has plenty of bad effects on people, but do i expect us to outlaw that?

Jesus did teach forgiveness and compassion and that is what my church (the Catholic one :) ) does teach. Admittedly not all of its followers do a good job, thats true of all groups i've found, but the teaching is that it is the acts that are sinful you don't hate the person. I compare homsexual sex to per-marital sex. In both cases it may be a relationship based in love, but God doesn't want us to just do whatever we want he wants us to be good people who can control their desires.

[IJ Reilly]

I compare homsexual sex to per-marital sex.

I don't know about this per-marital sex. I think married people probably ought to try it more than once.

[zimv20]

I don't know about this per-marital sex. I think married people probably ought to try it more than once.

i thought he meant once w/ each married couple you meet

[mactastic]

I compare homsexual sex to per-marital sex.

Well I suppose that's the only thing you CAN compare it too since you certainly couldn't find any examples of post-marital homosexual sex. At least until a couple weeks ago anyway.

[Frohickey]

I don't know about this per-marital sex. I think married people probably ought to try it more than once.

Per-marital sex... you mean having to get married all over again every time? That would get expensive. Though, we can call it the Full Employment for Wedding Photographers act. ;)

[Krizoitz]

I don't know about this per-marital sex. I think married people probably ought to try it more than once.

I don't but that is a moral/religious position. Thats how I feel homosexual sex compares to from a religious perspective.

[Krizoitz]

Well I suppose that's the only thing you CAN compare it too since you certainly couldn't find any examples of post-marital homosexual sex. At least until a couple weeks ago anyway.

That is irellavent, what I meant by it is that in the eyes of my faith they are both considered sinful, yet they are not as someone pointed out in the same kind of boat as oh say murder. Obviously many people in this country don't have a problem with pre-marital sex, and thats fine, we shouldn't outlaw either situation (like Bush wants to) just because some of us find it immoral. God is a big fan of humans being able to choose whether to do right or wrong. Obviously its in the best interest of a secular society or a religious one to not allow people to kill each other, steal, etc. But for things like sex, with consenting adults, as far as I'm concerned its their life and their choice. I may not agree with their choice but I support their right o have it.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't but that is a moral/religious position.

Oh, I see... the missionary position.

[zimv20]

Oh, I see... the missionary position.

that's IT! go to the corner!!

[Frohickey]

So, this thread has gravitated towards religious discussion, civil rights and discrimination.

But what about the encroachment of government into areas it doesn't belong in?

[2jaded2care]

Frohickey, the gay rights people are arguing that this is a civil rights matter, which would trump states' rights. Besides, I thought that for all practical purposes, the states' rights issue was lost with the Recent Unpleasantness.

I know the situation seems clear-cut to some people, but to me it's just a mess. I'll admit I don't know where I stand about it yet.

[IJ Reilly]

that's IT! go to the corner!!

What if I'm already in the corner?

No, not the basement!

[pseudobrit]

What if I'm already in the corner?

No, not the basement!

What about the closet? :o

[IJ Reilly]

What about the closet? :o

Well okay, I can go into the closet, but when I come back out again I'm still going to be straight.

[Krizoitz]

Oh, I see... the missionary position.

I'm glad to see that we can have such enlightened discussions on this message board. I started out by offering a position and responding to questions that were presented to me. I never claimed they were the only views or they were absolutely right. I said they were MY views. I didn't try and force them on anyone. So instead of responding respectfully or taking the time to read what I have been saying you jump to conclusions, put words in my mouth, take what I say out of context and now ridicule it. I was expecting better. I realize that not everyone agrees with my views, and I respect that. I realize how important a subject this is for the gay community and I have tried to be as respectful as possible. I realize that some of my arguments aren't as flattering as they could be but I feel they were the best option I had available for expressing what I was trying to. Hopefully in the future you might take that into consideration.

[mactastic]

So, this thread has gravitated towards religious discussion, civil rights and discrimination.

But what about the encroachment of government into areas it doesn't belong in?

Well geez, start your own thread if you like! (Where have I heard that before?) ;) But pretty much every thread you are involved in gravitates toward encroachment of government you know.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm glad to see that we can have such enlightened discussions on this message board. I started out by offering a position and responding to questions that were presented to me. I never claimed they were the only views or they were absolutely right. I said they were MY views. I didn't try and force them on anyone. So instead of responding respectfully or taking the time to read what I have been saying you jump to conclusions, put words in my mouth, take what I say out of context and now ridicule it. I was expecting better. I realize that not everyone agrees with my views, and I respect that. I realize how important a subject this is for the gay community and I have tried to be as respectful as possible. I realize that some of my arguments aren't as flattering as they could be but I feel they were the best option I had available for expressing what I was trying to. Hopefully in the future you might take that into consideration.

No disrespect intended, though I don't see where I jumped to any conclusions or put any words into your mouth. I saw an opportunity for a bit of humor to be injected into this topic and took it. I thought we could all use a good laugh at this point. I was ready for one, anyway. And personally, I figured we'd pretty much exhausted the gayness as a medical problem line of debate.

[bonehead]

I still think that it should not be outlawed at the FEDERAL level.

Let each state deal with the definition of marriage, if its already in their state constitution. Lets each county deal with the definition of marriage, otherwise, let each couple deal with it on their own.

Somehow, we have gotten away from the idea of "governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed". Its time to get rid of the additional benefits/rights granted by the government because of marital status. But you are not going to hear this from the news media, or from GWBush. Both would rather have government keep on getting more powerful, at the expense of the people.

How can you be against government getting more powerful and for the government outlawing two people getting married? You have a right to your opinion but I'm not sure it fits with your Libertarian ideals.

All the best

[Frohickey]

How can you be against government getting more powerful and for the government outlawing two people getting married? You have a right to your opinion but I'm not sure it fits with your Libertarian ideals.

All the best

Because I'm not for government outlawing two people getting married.
I'm against government getting more powerful, and that includes against government defining what marriage means to people. State government or local communities can define it, if its in their constitution. Its definitely not in the federal constitution.

Does that make sense now?

[wwworry]

No.

There is no discernable difference to a citizen between a state govt. trying to move into your house or the federal govt. moving into your house.

[Krizoitz]

Because I'm not for government outlawing two people getting married.
I'm against government getting more powerful, and that includes against government defining what marriage means to people. State government or local communities can define it, if its in their constitution. Its definitely not in the federal constitution.

Does that make sense now?

Except there is the argument that because of the full-faith clause in the constitution other states would be FORCED to recognize same sex marriages even if they didn't want to. So its still not a solution. Its an issue that has to be decided at the national level because it affects the entire nation.

[bonehead]

Frohickey,

First off, let me apologize for misreading the post I replied to. I read that you were in favor of outlawing it at the federal level. My mistake. However, if the state, county, or any other government gets to define marriage, isn't that effectively the same (for the citizens) as the Federal government doing it?

[Frohickey]

Except there is the argument that because of the full-faith clause in the constitution other states would be FORCED to recognize same sex marriages even if they didn't want to. So its still not a solution. Its an issue that has to be decided at the national level because it affects the entire nation.

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1298--1307 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_1s15.html)

If taken to legal extremes, the Full Faith and Credit clause would dissolve any distinctions between the multiple states. I don't think this is what is meant.

ACLU BACKGROUND BRIEFING: Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Ban (http://archive.aclu.org/news/n021497a.html)
In September 1996, President Clinton signed the ill-named "Defense of Marriage Act," which requires the federal government to ignore legal marriages between same-sex couples, and allows states to ignore such marriages performed in any other state. Woah!!!! No way. Clinton signed it???

The Mainstream Case Against the Federal Marriage Amendment (http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/carpenter/carpenter36.html)

LEGALLY WED: SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND THE CONSTITUTION (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/strasserlw.htm)

Andrews vs Andrews case 188 US 14 - FF&C case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=188&page=14)

Okay, so the jury is still out on whether the Full Faith & Credit clause can force each state to become exactly like another state. I think that FF&C does not homogenize the states. But, hey, if I'm a Constitutional lawyer, I'd be homeless and penniless (and I demand every single dollar that mactastic and pseudobrit makes, because I would be poor, and I deserve it more than they do). :D

[Frohickey]

Frohickey,

First off, let me apologize for misreading the post I replied to. I read that you were in favor of outlawing it at the federal level. My mistake. However, if the state, county, or any other government gets to define marriage, isn't that effectively the same (for the citizens) as the Federal government doing it?

Apology accepted, logged, and tagged. :D

County residents can establish residency elsewhere.
State residents can establish residency elsewhere
Can't do that for federal.

[pseudobrit]

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state...

If taken to legal extremes, the Full Faith and Credit clause would dissolve any distinctions between the multiple states. I don't think this is what is meant.

Legal extremes? C'mon now, this is way less up for argument and interpretation than the Second Amendment.

Public records are specifically what are being protected here.

I fail to see how one state honoring another's certificates of birth, death and marriage is anything other than commonplace and Constitutionally guaranteed.

[Frohickey]

Andrews vs Andrews case...

In this case, Chuck Andrews is married to Kate in Massachusetts. Chuck goes to South Dakota, stays long enough to become a resident, votes in a South Dakota election, and divorces Kate. Kate signs the divorce papers saying she deserted Chuck in South Dakota, even though Kate is not the one that moved. Chuckie went back to Boston, married a young cutiepie called Annie, and lived happily ever after until he kicked the bucket. After Chuckie died, in comes Kate trying to muscle in on Annie's turf, trying to administer Chuck's estate.

Here is the final paragraph of the Andrews vs Andrews case. From my read, it says...

Although it is not essential to the question before us, which calls upon us only to determine whether the decree of divorce rendered in South Dakota was entitled to extraterritorial effect, we observe, in passing, that the statute of South Dakota made domicil, and not mere residence, the basis of divorce proceedings in that state. As, without reference to the statute of South Dakota and in any event, domicil in that state was essential to give jurisdiction to the courts of such state to render a decree of divorce which would have extraterritorial effect, and as the appearance of one or both of the parties to a divorce proceed- [188 U.S. 14, 42] * ing could not suffice to confer jurisdiction over the subject-matter, where it was wanting because of the absence of domicil within the state, we conclude that no violation of the due faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States arose from the action of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts in obeying the command of the state statute, and refusing to give effect to the decree of divorce in question.

...that Kate, the original wife was the lawful widow of Chuck, and that Annie is out on a limb without a dead husband. What she had was a boyfriend. ;)

Seems that Massachusetts had a law saying a divorce has to meet certain criteria, and Massachusetts Supreme Court obeyed the state statute that refuse to give effect to the divorce, even though the divorce was valid in South Dakota. Full faith and credit clause can't be used to turn Massachusetts into South Dakota. So, state legislature/constitution is the dog, and full faith and credit is the tail. The dog wags the tail, not the other way around.

[Frohickey]

Legal extremes? C'mon now, this is way less up for argument and interpretation than the Second Amendment.

Public records are specifically what are being protected here.

I fail to see how one state honoring another's certificates of birth, death and marriage is anything other than commonplace and Constitutionally guaranteed.

Check out the Andrews vs Andrews case that I included, and look at the reading of the SCOTUS.

If I read the Andrews vs Andrews case right...

If you had Massachusetts saying that Santa Claus lives in the North Pole (as written in MA law), and South Dakota says that Santa Claus lives in 2950 Winterwonderland Trailer Park, SD (as written in SD law), when the real Santa Claus comes into Massachusetts to drive his reindeer sleigh, his South Dakota drivers license is no good, and Santa is gonna get a ticket for driving without a license. :D

[Frohickey]

Legal extremes? C'mon now, this is way less up for argument and interpretation than the Second Amendment.

Getting out of topic here but...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed.

Sentence Construction quiz time.
What is the subject (http://www.learnenglish.de/Level1/GrammarText/SENTENCETEXT.htm#Subjects) of the sentence?
What is the predicate (http://www.learnenglish.de/Level1/TechnicalTerms.htm#Predicate) of the sentence?
What is the averbial dependent clause (http://www.learnenglish.de/Level1/GrammarText/SENTENCETEXT.htm#Adverbial) of the sentence?

[IJ Reilly]

What is the Constitutional law context?

Oh, sorry, that would be relevant.

[pseudobrit]

Getting out of topic here but...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed.

Sentence Construction quiz time.
What is the subject (http://www.learnenglish.de/Level1/GrammarText/SENTENCETEXT.htm#Subjects) of the sentence?
What is the predicate (http://www.learnenglish.de/Level1/TechnicalTerms.htm#Predicate) of the sentence?
What is the averbial dependent clause (http://www.learnenglish.de/Level1/GrammarText/SENTENCETEXT.htm#Adverbial) of the sentence?

Color me unimpressed. It's not that simple.

I can sketch out the grammatical construction of the entire ****ing Constitution and it won't make a **** bit of difference in the real world.

You can do better than this, can't you?

[Frohickey]

What is the Constitutional law context?

Oh, sorry, that would be relevant.

Context being this is how the SCOTUS have interpreted the FF&C clause.

[IJ Reilly]

Context being this is how the SCOTUS have interpreted the FF&C clause.

That's a bit too much in the way of shorthand for me, but the point I'm making if it wasn't clear is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can't be read like the King James Bible. The process of interpretation of these words has been going on for over 200 years, and this process is as much a part of the law as the original words themselves.

[jayb2000]

This is not about making the Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Islamic, etc Churches perform ceremonies for homosexuals.

It's about a legal contract between two people that details inheritence, insurance, and tax laws (among others). Parent teacher conferences

Either the state and local goverments should give NO benefits for heterosexual married couples (which is the real libertarian position), or they have to allow it for homosexuals as well.

Personally, I would prefer the former. I don't think the federal goverment should be discriminating against single people or married people without children. If some Republicans want to block more social benefits for more children, then they should (logically) equally want to block increased tax deductions for more children.

[Frohickey]

Either the state and local goverments should give NO benefits for heterosexual married couples (which is the real libertarian position), or they have to allow it for homosexuals as well.

Personally, I would prefer the former. I don't think the federal goverment should be discriminating against single people or married people without children. If some Republicans want to block more social benefits for more children, then they should (logically) equally want to block increased tax deductions for more children.

I agree.

I would go further. I think that medical insurance should charge married couples twice the price a single person is charged. (This would mean a drop in medical insurance premiums for single people.)

Everything else, inheritance, survivor benefits, etc, can be done by a will. Heck, a will can give a pet cat everything.

[2jaded2care]

Either the state and local goverments should give NO benefits for heterosexual married couples (which is the real libertarian position), or they have to allow it for homosexuals as well.

Personally, I would prefer the former. I don't think the federal goverment should be discriminating against single people or married people without children. If some Republicans want to block more social benefits for more children, then they should (logically) equally want to block increased tax deductions for more children.

Hear hear! As a conservative (and one-half of a heterosexual married couple), I second that position. Two people can almost live as cheaply as one. Single people have it rough.

I'll resist making my predictable comment about replacing the income tax with a national sales tax (exempting food, medicine).

Additionally, I have to wonder if this whole health care mess would have deteriorated so much if employers had stayed out of the HMO thing, instead given employees their full pay but workers had to pay their own medical insurance/expenses. If everyone was pretty much paying equally, the system might (?) not have been able to get so out of balance.

[IJ Reilly]

Everything else, inheritance, survivor benefits, etc, can be done by a will. Heck, a will can give a pet cat everything.

No, it can't. Property owned by a married couple is transferred to a surviving spouse automatically, without probate. In California, a surviving spouse also inherits Prop 13 property taxes. If the inheritor isn't a family member, the property value is reestablished as of the date of death. A number of other issues can't be addressed in wills, because they involve living people.

[IJ Reilly]

Additionally, I have to wonder if this whole health care mess would have deteriorated so much if employers had stayed out of the HMO thing, instead given employees their full pay but workers had to pay their own medical insurance/expenses. If everyone was pretty much paying equally, the system might (?) not have been able to get so out of balance.

Have you ever tried to buy health insurance outside of a group? I suspect not, because if you had, you'd never suggest this as a "solution."

[2jaded2care]

No, I have not had to buy health insurance outside of a group. My point was, if there was no "group" for anyone, would they tolerate it being as bad as I've heard it is?... Not saying it's necessarily a good solution, just speculating and fishing for feedback.

[IJ Reilly]

No, I have not had to buy health insurance outside of a group. My point was, if there was no "group" for anyone, would they tolerate it being as bad as I've heard it is?... Not saying it's necessarily a good solution, just speculating and fishing for feedback.

If it weren't for groups with the power to negotiate on price and average out risk, every individual would be at the mercy of the insurance industry, and I don't think I need to tell you that their mercies aren't very tender. I suppose if everyone were directly exposed to the industry in this way, we might eventually see a groundswell of opinion for reforming the health care system in the comprehensive way we can't even seem to discuss today. This doesn't seem like a very civilized way of addressing a problem, but it might be the only way to get around the roadblocks the insurance industry creates between us and a functional and cost-effective health care system.

[2jaded2care]

Gee, it would seem that a non-conservative (fair characterization?) somewhat agrees with me on a completely hypothetical, unrealistic scenario! I see that as hypothetical progress! :)

[Frohickey]

Have you ever tried to buy health insurance outside of a group? I suspect not, because if you had, you'd never suggest this as a "solution."

There is no technical reason why the buying and selling of health care insurance can't be done the same way we buy and sell car insurance.

[IJ Reilly]

Gee, it would seem that a non-conservative (fair characterization?) somewhat agrees with me on a completely hypothetical, unrealistic scenario! I see that as hypothetical progress! :)

Only in theory, mind you. ;)

If someone is willing to share my pain, I suppose I shouldn't stand in their way. For some people at least, having a problem themselves is apparently the only way they will ever believe that it's a serious problem for anyone else.

[bonehead]

There is no technical reason why the buying and selling of health care insurance can't be done the same way we buy and sell car insurance.

Actually, it works this way now. Before I had coverage available to me through work, I purchased health insurance outside of a group. It was just like buying auto insurance.

I read something recently about health insurance that I didn't know. Employer provided health coverage wasn't widespread until WWII when there was a shortage of workers and employers used health benefits as a recruiting tool.

[IJ Reilly]

I read something recently about health insurance that I didn't know. Employer provided health coverage wasn't widespread until WWII when there was a shortage of workers and employers used health benefits as a recruiting tool.

Yes this is true. The "inventor" of the concept of employer-provided health care was Kaiser Steel. Ironically, the nationwide complex of steel mills, shipyards and heavy construction businesses once operated by Kaiser are all gone now, but their health care business lives on.

[Frohickey]

Just did a search on the web about getting medical care insurance.

The range of premiums for a single male runs from $46/month to $425/month premium.

The weird thing was the super-duper expensive $425/month premium included maternity care. I guess thats why its so expensive. Transplanting a womb can cost a lot of money. I'm betting that there is a legal name change to 'Loretta' as well. :p

[zimv20]

The range of premiums for a single male runs from $46/month to $425/month premium.

The weird thing was the super-duper expensive $425/month premium included maternity care.

mine is $385/mo. it doesn't cover that much (and i don't get my $$ worth from it). i'm just hard to insure. honestly, i'm lucky to have any at all.

i'm one state budget cut away from losing it. then i'm screwed.

[IJ Reilly]

A single male of what age? With what kind of health history? In which part of the country?

I'm paying over $250 a month for a minimal HMO and those premiums have nearly doubled in the last three years and the coverage has been cut substantially during that time. I can assure you, no male in their 40s, no matter how spotless their health history may be, is paying $46 a month in Southern California for any meaningful level of coverage. For a person in their 50s or 60s, expect monthly premiums in the $500-1000 range for a basic PPO plan, and if you happen to have an outstanding heath problem, coverage may not be available at any price.

[Frohickey]

A single male of what age? With what kind of health history? In which part of the country?.

Here (http://www.ekaiserinsurance.com/) is the link.

[IJ Reilly]

Here (http://www.ekaiserinsurance.com/) is the link.

The operative word here is "meaningful." Bargain-basement plans provide essentially no meaningful coverage.

[Thanatoast]

Not to hijack the thread back to the topic of gay marriage or anything...

But there's a new story on Yahoo that I just had to point out.

Lockyer and the conservative Alliance Defense Fund said the court's action was urgently needed because thousands of newly married gays might otherwise think they enjoy the same rights granted other married couples
link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040311/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_3)
God forbid that we let these people think they enjoy the same rights as the rest of us! How can anyone say something like that with a straight face? Seems to me they're making the liberal case for us. :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

Not to hijack the thread back to the topic of gay marriage or anything...

But there's a new story on Yahoo that I just had to point out.


link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040311/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_3)
God forbid that we let these people think they enjoy the same rights as the rest of us! How can anyone say something like that with a straight face? Seems to me they're making the liberal case for us. :rolleyes:

Dunno. Is this a direct quote from Lockyer? I doubt a savvy California politician with ambitions to be governor would make such a verbal gaffe.

[jayb2000]

This is not about making the Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Islamic, etc Churches perform ceremonies for homosexuals.

It's about a legal contract between two people that details inheritence, insurance, and tax laws (among others). Parent teacher conferences

Either the state and local goverments should give NO benefits for heterosexual married couples (which is the real libertarian position), or they have to allow it for homosexuals as well.

Personally, I would prefer the former. I don't think the federal goverment should be discriminating against single people or married people without children. If some Republicans want to block more social benefits for more children, then they should (logically) equally want to block increased tax deductions for more children.


Just saw an item on NBC- there are 1138 Federal Laws concering marriage.
Unlss those laws treat all married couples equally, they should be repealed.

In case anyone thinks this makes a difference, I am married, so I do receive many of those benefits, but I believe in equal rights.